Page images
PDF
EPUB

Charles Claflin Allen, of Missouri :

I move that the report be received and filed.

The motion was seconded and adopted.

The Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Judge Sharp, of Baltimore, is Chairman of that committee.

George M. Sharp, of Maryland:

I have no report to present.

The President:

Next in order is the report of the Committee on Commercial Law, of which Mr. Logan, of New York, is Chairman.

Walter S. Logan, of New York :

The Committee on Commercial Law presents a majority and minority report. Mr. Whitelock will present the majority report, after which I will read the minority report.

The majority report of the committee was then read. (See the Report in the Appendix.)

Sigmund Zeisler, of Illinois:

It is now a quarter of one, and the minority report covers nineteen printed pages, and I therefore move that we adjourn until half-past two o'clock.

John Morris, Jr., of Indiana:

This report has not been printed in time to receive consideration under the by-laws. I therefore submit that the consideration of the report be postponed until the annual meeting next year with leave to the committee to amend or supplement the report if they see fit.

The President:

The Chair must rule that that motion would not be in order until after Mr. Logan has presented his minority report. Recess was taken until 2.30 P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Tuesday, September 27, 1904, 2.30 P. M.

The President called the meeting to order.

The President:

The Secretary will make announcements of committees appointed.

The Secretary:

The President has appointed as Committee on Auditing the Report of the Treasurer:

Charles Martindale, of Indiana.

Edward B. Whitney, of New York.

As the Committee on Publications:

George Whitelock, of Maryland.

Edward Avery Harriman, of Connecticut.
Charles Claflin Allen, of Missouri.

Francis B. James, of Ohio.

M. A. Montgomery, of Mississippi.

The President:

The next order of business is the paper by Benjamin F. Abbott, of Georgia, on "To what Extent will a Nation Protect Its Citizens in Foreign Countries?"

Benjamin F. Abbott, of Georgia, then read his paper. (See the Appendix.)

The President:

I want to avail myself of just a moment's time before Mr. Logan presents the minority report of the Committee on Commercial Law to say on behalf of the Executive Committee that last fall, not long after the adjournment of our annual meeting, we transmitted through the American Ambassador at London, Mr. Choate, an invitation to Sir Robert B. Finlay, Attorney General of England, asking him and Lady Finlay to be our guests during this meeting, which was quite promptly accepted; but later we received word from Mr. Choate that it was impossible for him to come. I desire to read now the Attorney General's letter to Mr. Choate upon the subject, so that it may get in our records.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
July 4, 1904.

MY DEAR MR. CHOATE:

You will recollect that when I told you I hoped to have the honour of availing myself of the invitation of the American Bar to address them at St. Louis I added that it was quite possible that circumstances might put it out of my power to

come.

I had hoped that I should not be thus prevented, but I much regret to find that the exigencies of public business this year absolutely forbid my further entertaining the hope of coming.

I felt it my duty to consult the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Lord Chancellor on the point, and they were both clear that it was impossible for me consistently with my public duties to visit America this year. In this the Prime Minister entirely concurs.

You will, I know, understand the circumstances and sympathize with me in this disappointment. I regarded the invitation as a very great honour, and both Lady Finlay and myself had looked forward to our visit with great pleasure and interest. It is, however, now impossible, and I can only ask you to express to the American Bar my sense of their kindness and my great regret that circumstances make it impossible for me to avail myself of it.

Yours very sincerely,

R. B. FINLAY.

New members were then elected.

(See List of New Members.)

The President:

Mr. Logan now has the floor to present the minority report of the Committee on Commercial Law.

Walter S. Logan, of New York, then presented the minority report of the Committee on Commercial Law.

(See the Report in the Appendix.)

The President:

Gentlemen, the reports are before you for your action.

Frederick N. Judson, of Missouri:

As the report of the committee recommends no action by the Association, I rise to move that the report of the committee, with the expression of the views of the minority, be received and filed.

In that connection, before taking my seat, as one who signed the majority report, I wish to say that the statement of our distinguished friend, the Chairman of the committee, that he had his minority report ready the day following the receiving of the majority report makes me regret that he did not find time to submit his authorities to the majority of the committee; or he must have been very diligent in preparing them in a single day. It should be clearly understood what the issue between us is. The majority of the committee did not understand that they were instructed to find remedies for the enforcement of the so-called anti-trust act of Congress. They did understand that they were asked to consider and find remedies in legislative form for any combination that may threaten commercial intercourse. If gentlemen will examine the cases cited-and I do not care to go beyond the cases which our Chairman has himself presented in his minority statement-they will find the law to be simply this: That a Circuit Court of the United States under its general equity powers, where the conditions for the exercise of equity jurisdiction exist, such as irreparable injury or the prevention of a multiplicity of suits, will exercise that jurisdiction and protect the suitor against unlawful combinations in commerce of any kind. Of course just here comes the question of the effect of this proposed amendment of our Chairman, and it should be clearly understood. As the law stands now, the Circuit Court of the United States will only have such jurisdiction when the suit is brought on the equity side of the court, and not based upon a federal statute or claim of federal right where the necessary conditions of diverse citizenship exist. If you want to bring a suit against a citizen of your own state for relief against a combination threatening commercial intercourse, whether of labor or

of capital, you can go of course into the Circuit Court of the United States if you have non-resident parties, or into the State court if you have not. Now the question squarely presented to the committee was this: Is there such a public emergency to day as calls for the increase of the powers of the federal courts in granting injunctions so that we can enable a federal court to grant an injunction to protect a man in case of irreparable injury to interstate commerce when the parties are citizens of the same state? Our Chairman seems to think that there is, and I am certainly surprised to find such a disciple of Jefferson as our distinguished Chairman assuming the fatherhood of a bill to increase the powers of the federal courts in granting injunctions. The majority of the committee did not feel that there was any public emergency calling for that extension of the powers of the federal courts. If you will examine the case of Blindell vs. Hagan, reported in 54 Fed. Rep. 40, and which afterwards was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Louisiana Circuit, you will find that the court, in a passage which our Chairman has quoted, denied the jurisdiction as to the resident defendants, but sustained it on general equity principles as to the non-resident defendant, and granted an injunction. If our Chairman's proposed amendment had been in force, the court would have retained jurisdiction against the resident defendants. friend, the Chairman, on page 14, cites Gulf Railway Co. vs. Miami S. S. Co., 30 C. C. A. 142. There you will find the Circuit Court of Appeals states the law that the Circuit Court of the United States should always uphold jurisdiction to protect the suitor in any case of an unlawful combination in commerce when the necessary facts of equity jurisdiction exist. When Congress passed the Sherman Act, so-called, in 1890, it was thought that when it gave the individual suitor the right to have threefold damages and gave the federal court the power to grant an injunction in a summary way at the instance of the government, that the right to the extraordinary relief to protect the citizen by injunction could

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »