CURRENT EVENTSSource: American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 8, No. 11 (NOVEMBER, 1922), pp. 663-664Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25711055 .

Accessed: 20/05/2014 05:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AmericanBar Association Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.91 on Tue, 20 May 2014 05:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

JOVRNAL NOVEMBER, 1922

Justice Days Retirement

ANOTHER change in the composition of the

United States Supreme Court is brought about by the resignation of Associate Justice Wil liam R. Day, effective Nov. 14. Justice Day re

signs to be able to devote his undivided attention

to his duties as umpire of the American-German

Claims Commission. He is now seventy-three years of age, and will go upon the retired list of the Court on full pay. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Roosevelt in February, 1903.

Previous to that he had served as Assistant Secre

tary of State ; Secretary of State, succeeding John Sherman on April 26, 1898, and being succeeded

by John Hay in September of the same year; chair man of the U. S. Peace Commissioners at Paris at

the close of the war with Spain, and Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Justice Day has the

degree of LL. D. from the University of Michigan, where he attended law lectures, and from the Col

lege of the City of New York. He has been re

garded as one of the most valuable members of the nation's highest court. His retirement on full pay, it may be noted in this connection, illustrates the

superior provision which the Federal government makes, in one respect at least, for the national ju diciary as compared with what states do for their own able judges of long service.

Judiciary Versus Executive

AN attempt by Gov. Small of Illinois to pardon

certain school trustees of Chicago sentenced for contempt of court in 1919 has been completely frustrated by the Supreme Court of the State. The trustees in question were sentenced, some to pay a

fine and others both to fine and brief imprisonment, because of their refusal to reinstate an ousted city school superintendent whose title to the position

had been upheld by the court. Gov. Small promptly pardoned them, a test case was made up, and the affair became locally a "cause celebre." The Su

preme Court made short work of the attempted gu bernatorial interference with judicial powers. It declared that "the power to punish for contempt of court is in the judicial department of the gov ernment, and no power is conferred on the execu

tive department to review, set aside, or annul in

any manner the judgment of the court."

One Judicial Reform Achieved

PASSAGE

of the act providing for new district

judges and making other important additions to the federal machinery of justice secures at least one

of the needed reforms of which Chief Justice Taft

spoke at the San Francisco meeting of the Associa tion. Important and novel features of the new law are the provisions for an annual conference at Wash

ington of the Chief Justice and the senior circuit judge of each judicial circuit, for the purpose of securing information as to the needs of the several circuits

and suggestions of any methods by which the admin

istration of justice may be improved; for an annual

report by the senior district judge of each U. S. dis

trict court to the senior circuit judge of the judicial circuit, setting forth the condition of business in his

district, together with recommendations as to the need

of additional judicial assistance for the disposal of bus

iness for the ensuing year, this report to be laid before

the Washington conference; and for assigning district

judges to those districts where assistance is needed to

dispose of the business. These assignments are to be

made by the senior circuit judge where the district to

which the assignment is made and that from which the

district judge is taken are in the same judicial circuit.

Where it is found impracticable to assign a judge from

the same judicial circuit, the Chief Justice may make

663

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.91 on Tue, 20 May 2014 05:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

664 American Bar Association Journal

such assignment on a certificate of the senior circuit judge of the circuit in which assistance is needed and

with the consent of the senior circuit judge from whose circuit the district judge is to be taken. There are a number of provisions for action by alternates in case the Chief Justice or senior circuit judge are in

capacitated at the time for the discharge of the duties

specified. The great significance of all these details lies in the fact that the judicial system is unified, made

capable of team-work and, in consequence, of greater efficiency. Heretofore the district judges have been almost independent in their respective districts, and some have been overworked while others have found their tasks comparatively easy. The new arrange ment provides for a more equitable and satisfactory distribution of judicial labor.

Conserving Uncle Sam's Reputation

THE popular impression that "it won't do to monkey

with Uncle Sam" is too useful in many respects to be hazarded by neglecting charges of inefficiency or even worse touching any part of the Federal adminis tration of criminal justice. This largely accounts, no

doubt, for the prompt appointment by Attorney-Gen eral Daugherty of two Special Assistants to investi

gate certain charges against the conduct of the U. S. District Attorney's office at Chicago, made by former Assistant District Attorney John V. Clinnin. These

charges, while specifically mentioning no individual as

responsible, were substantially to the effect that there were too many "no bills" returned, too many cases "nolle prossed" and dismissed that should have been tried, that numerous violations of the law were re

ported but never presented to the grand jury, that there was a systematic and protected traffic in liquor, and that certain attorneys not of record received ad vance information and secured, for unusual fees, dis

position of cases without the knowledge of the attor

neys of record. The Special Assistants to the Attorney-General,

Maj. Edgar B. Tolman and Mr. John R. Montgomery of Chicago, have completed their report and presented it to the Department of Justice. It is based on statis tical investigations of the records of the office made

by certain expert examiners appointed by the Depart ment. The investigation covered the number of "no bills" returned and cases "nolle prossed" and otherwise disposed of for the four-year period 1918-22, the num ber of law violations reported but not presented to the

grand jury for the two-and-a-half year period 1920-22, and a comparison of the results obtained in the Chicago district with those obtained in other districts. Lack of space renders it impossible to present these tables, but from them the Special Assistants concluded that the "three subjects?'no bills/ 'nolles/ and 'cases not fol lowed up*?presented cumulative evidence of failure to enforce the law." The statistical comparison be tween conditions in Chicago and elsewhere, prepared by the examiners, showed that that district ranks thirty-ninth in the number of prohibition cases com

menced, thirty-ninth in total number of criminal cases

closed, sixty-fourth in number of prohibition cases closed, and forty-fifth in number of convictions se cured. As to the alleged .exploitation of in fluence by lawyers, the Special Assistants found the evidence incomplete but sufficient, in their opinion, to indicate that some members of the bar were subject to censure. They found, on the whole, that the

charges were well-founded, "viewed as a statement of general conditions," but pointed out that they had not

attempted to fix the personal responsibility in any case, as that could probably be better determined by cer tain subsequent proceedings.

They recommended that there should be a thor ough reorganization of the District Attorney's office, both as regards the preparation of cases and the keep ing of records; that in certain cases they were pre pared to designate, further investigations be had to determine if there had been complicity in unprofes sional actions by anyone connected with the District

Attorney's office; that a special prosecutor of recog nized ability and independence be appointed to press the trial of certain pending cases, suggesting that if he were given a free hand this might go far toward es

tablishing responsibility; that the U. S. District At torney be held responsible for the selection of his assistants and their subsequent official conduct. Finally, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General, as head of the Department of Justice, is naturally the official adviser of the President as to appointments in his field, they expressed the opinion that there can be no real enforcement of the laws of the United States un less the office of U. S. District Attorney be entirely freed from the possibility of political control.

On being shown the report, District Attorney Clyne pointed out that "not a single case is found where one of my assistants is charged with graft or corruption." As to whether cases or complaints were disposed of with more or less dispatch than might be found in other districts, he said that was a question that included a great many, considerations, and these would be fully explained by him in the light of record facts in this district.

Statistics of the Largest Meeting

EXACT figures of the registered attendance at

the recent annual meeting at San Francisco are given in a recent letter by Treasurer Frederick E. Wadhams to Beverley L. Hodghead, Chairman of the Local Committee of Arrangements. This letter says that every state in the Union was repre sented except one (New Hampshire). The total number of lawyers registered was 1,412, which ex ceeds by over 200 the registered attendance at any previous meeting of the Association. There were also ten representatives from foreign countries pres ent. Of those registered 723 were from California, and this breaks the record for attendance from a single state. The banquet was served to 1,026 members, a number also in excess of the attendance at this function at previous meetings.

WHERE THE JOURNAL IS ON SALE The American Bar Association Journal is on sale at the

following places: New York?Brentano's, Fifth Ave. & 27th St Chicago?A. C. McClurg & Co., ?18 So. Wabash Ave.

P. O. News Company, 31 W. Monroe St.

Denver, Colo?Herrick Book & Stationery Co, 934 Fifteenth St.

Los Angeles, Calif.?Fowler Bros., 747 So. Broadway. The Jones Book Store, 426-428 W. 6th St

Dallas, Texas?Morgan C. Jones, 101 N. Akard St San Francisco, Calif.?Downtown Office of The Re

corder, 77 Sutter St

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.91 on Tue, 20 May 2014 05:27:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions