William A. Ketcham:

The report is only signed by four out of the five members of the committee. Francis Rawle, of Pennsylvania, is of counsel for the Italian Consulate, and thinks that he ought not to be a party to the report, which covers matters concerning the rights of aliens as provided in the Bartholdt Bill.

I move the adoption of the report; and ask for a division of the question, so that each matter may be acted upon separately.

The President:

Will you state the first proposition?

W. A. Ketcham:

The first proposition is upon the adoption of the Bartholdt Bill with respect to the right of the United States to prosecute actions; the committee recommends striking out the provision in the bill that the government may prosecute with the consent of the individual citizen.

The President:

The question is on the first recommendation, which is to strike out of Section 1 the words: "Aliens whose rights are affected may be joined as complainants with the United States in such equitable proceeding "; and in Section 2 to strike out the words "and the consent of such citizen or subject of a foreign country, party defendant."

W. A. Ketcham:

I asked that the questions be put separately.

The President:

The Chair stands corrected.

The question was then put upon the first recommendation, which was carried.

W. A. Ketcham :

The second recommendation arises on the provision which requires that whenever a claim is filed against the United States, and it appears that there has been unreasonable delay, interest shall be allowed pending the litigation at the rate of 6 per cent,

and that the judgment against the United States shall bear interest at that rate. The committee is of the opinion that as the United States pays only three and four per cent, this rate of six per cent would be too much of a punishment against the United States for the act of a negligent official, and that the matter should be left to the discretion of the trial court to allow not less than three nor more than four per cent pending the litigation, the judgment itself to bear four per cent interest.

Ernest Morris, of Colorado:

I do not agree with the recommendation that the rate of interest payable by the United States should be reduced. I think the matter should be looked at from the standpoint of the creditor, not from that of the debtor. Why should the United States, when it comes into court, be a more favored litigant than an ordinary creditor? The very fact that the United States is able to borrow money at two or three per cent should be all the more reason for paying its obligations promptly; and it should not be accorded a privilege which another litigant does not receive. I hope that this portion of the recommendation will not carry.

W. A. Ketcham:

The committee has endeavored to bear in mind not only the rights of litigants, but also the rights of the United States. No person could ever get a contract with the United States by which he was to have six per cent interest at any time, because no official would ever assume the responsibility of binding the United States to pay such interest when it only pays four per cent at the highest. There was an evil, as the committee thought, in the situation that a man might be held up indefinitely, and then get no return, but the recommendation is that whenever there is an unjustifiable delay, no less than three per cent, and, within the discretion of the court trying the case, no more than four per cent, ought to be charged, the judgment always to bear four per cent interest. No one is bound to contract with the United States, and if this should be the law every one contracting with the United States would know precisely what he is to get.

E. T. Florance, of Louisiana:

Do I understand that this interest refers to a contract, or to all obligations?

W. A. Ketcham:

It is to allow interest at a rate not less than three per cent. That is on all obligations. Whenever there is a claim against the United States, interest shall be allowed at not less than three nor more than four per cent from the time when the money should be paid.

Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York:

I move as an amendment to the pending motion, that this recommendation be recommitted for further consideration.

E. T. Florance:

I second the motion.

W. A. Ketcham:

I desire to say

The President:

The Chair rules that a motion to recommit is not debatable. W. A. Ketcham :

Then I ask unanimous consent to make a personal statement. The President:

Unless there is objection, the gentlemen may do so.

W. A. Ketcham:

The committee consists of five members. Unfortunately only one member is here. I do not want to take the responsibility; I don't see how it could be referred to a committee of one when the law says that it shall be a committee of five.

The President:

The vote having been taken, the motion to recommit is lost. The question recurs upon the recommendation of the committee. Thomas I. Parkinson:

I do not believe that the question of the rate of interest on judgments against the United States is one upon which an

association of lawyers is peculiarly fitted to pass. It is not a legal question, and I think it unfortunate that the committee should ask this Association to pass upon it. Congress is very much the best body to determine the question; if Congress needs advice, it ought to come from an economic or financial body of experts, rather than from a body of lawyers.

The motion to agree to the recommendation was then put and lost.

W. A. Ketcham :

The last recommendation of the committee is on a bill that was presented in regard to insanity cases, and to regulate expert testimony. The entire bill has been approved by the committee except the third section for which we recommend a substitute. The bill was prepared either by Prof. Wigmore or by Prof. Keedy, or by both.

In view of the fact that there are comparatively few legislatures that will be in session until after the next meeting of the Association, and desiring to accommodate Prof. Keedy, as there is no special urgency about it, I ask that the matter be deferred until the next meeting of the Association.

The President:

The Chair hearing no objection, the matter will take that

course.

W. A. Ketcham :

I move that the first section of the report be adopted, and that the third recommendation of the committee be referred for action to the committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform under the incoming administration.

A. M. Christianson, of North Dakota:

I rise for information as to what the proposition is.

The President:

That the matter be deferred until the next meeting of the Association. This is on the request of Prof. Keedy, who is interested in the subject. The first portion of the report has been previously adopted. The question, however, now, is upon agreeing to the request of the committee that final action upon

the last proposition be deferred until the next meeting of the Association.

On vote taken the Chair announced that the motion had been carried.

The President:

The report has now been adopted, with the exception that the third recommendation is deferred for final action until the next meeting of the Association.

(See Report in Appendix, page 374.)

The next committee is the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure.

Frederick N. Judson, of Missouri:

I understand there is no report from that committee.

The President:

The Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

The Secretary:

There is no report from that committee.

The President:

The Committee on Commercial Law.

E. T. Florance, of Louisiana:

Francis B. James is the Chairman of the committee. I present at his request and in his absence the recommendations of the committee.

The first section of the report is merely preliminary. The report really begins on the subject of bankruptcy. There were, I think, six bills to repeal the bankruptcy act and about eight to change it-they all died with the session of Congress. Nevertheless, the committee thinks it well for the Association to reiterate its recommendations as to the advisability of not repealing the bankruptcy statute.

Clause 3 of the report is on the subject of the Cummins Bill. Last year the committee concluded to report disapproval of the Cummins bill in the shape in which it then stood. Prior to the meeting of the Association, however, the bill was passed by both