service as Governor of the State, the position of which, thereby brought him face to face with the weakness of our Constitution and gave him ample opportunity to study the needs of the State, wrote a very able address on our Constitutional history and offered many valued suggestions for Constitutional reform. This address was delivered to this Association in July, 1917, and portions of it, at least, were published in some of the large daily papers of the State and it seemed for a time that the suggestions offered would really take form in a call for the Constitutional Convention, however the nation soon declared war and our thoughts were centered on the conflict which was raging beyond the seas, and domestic and internal affairs were almost entirely forgotten.

At the regular session of the Legislature of 1919, one among the first measures introduced after the Legislature got down to work was a resolution calling a Constitutional Convention. The resolution was fought over in committee and on the floor of the House and ingloriously defeated.

It was significant to note, however, that, during the debate, the most bitter opponents of the resolution admitted that a new Constitution was needed, but they thought it inadvisable to call the convention, following so closely on the heels of the great world war.

The history of Alabama is against this untenable position. It was found necessary following the close of the Civil War to call a Constitutional Convention and this was true with practically all other Southern States. The fact that there has been a great upheaval and conditions have materially changed is the strongest argument that can be made for a Constitutional Convention.

During the year 1920, our present Governor, on account of the ratification and adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, saw fit to call the Legislature into extraordinary session for the purpose of amending our election laws, so as to conform to this amendment. At that time, the Governor had served as the Chief Executive of

the State for about one and one-half years, the position of which brought him face to face with the State's needs. and offered the unusual opportunity to study the economic and financial conditions of the State. He, therefore, found the needs for a revision of the State Constitution of such importance that he embodied the question in his call to the Legislature and in his message strongly urged upon the Legislature to call a Constitutional Convention.

At this special session, a resolution, calling a Convention, was offered and it met the same fate of defeat as at the regular session.

Everyone who has given the subject real thought admits that our Constitution is full of technicalities and so complex that it is a hindrance rather than a help. It has grown to be a patchwork of Amendments, some of which are hard to reconcile with the original instrument. It has served its usefulness and the day has come when the bench and bar and press of the State, to whom the laity must look for information on the subject, must take a strong position and make known to the people, in no uncertain terms, the real cause for many of the failures of the State Government to properly function.

Alabama is suffering today from Constitutional inhibitions and restrictions more than from anything known to its people; the malady is of such long standing that it seems certain that unless it is soon checked other serious complications will arise. There is but one remedy, which is a specific for the disease, and that remedy is a Constitutional Convention. It is devoutly hoped that the day is not far distant when we will have a Convention and those charged with the responsibility of this all-important work will not be overcome with zeal to write one great principle into the Constitution, but will enter on the discharge of their duties with full determination to give serious consideration to every section of the entire instrument. From these observations, it seems that we are forced to one, and only one conclusion, and that is, Alabama needs a new Constitution.

PAPER BY

JOHN D. BIBB

OF ANNISTON

THE LAW'S DELAYS

I am

The Association in inviting me to read a paper at this convention left the selection of the subject to me. not sure that I have made a wise choice, since so much has been written and said about the law's delay that an attempt to say anything new on the subject is almost obliged to be predestined to failure. Repetition may serve, however, further to impress our minds with the thought that there is still room for improvement in our system of practice and to induce us to better it, and hence I have ventured to write upon this subject.

As far back as the time of Dickens, there was ground for criticism of the lack of expedition in the Chancery Courts for in "Bleak House," we read that the celebrated case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce was pending in Chancery, and had been for a number of years, and further than that, that at that time there was no prospect of a speedy disposition of it. The author's references to the case lead us to believe that the delays of the Chancery Court had bcome a matter of common dissatisfaction, and that a case in Chanvery was a subject of humor. In more recent times, I have heard the delays of Chancery mentioned in no uncertain terms. I think the first time I ever heard of Chancery was when an uncle of mine, in playing with me, caught me so that I could not get away, and told me there was no use to struggle, as he "had me in Chancery." As the word was new to me, I asked him what Chancery was, and he replied, "Haven't you ever heard of Chancery? Chancery is worse than jail. When you get in jail, you can get out some time, but if you ever get into Chancery, you will never get out." Since then I have heard many such refer

ences to Chancery, and shortly after my admission to the Bar, I began to see that people had some reason for making such remarks, though, of course, at this time conditions are vastly improved. My first experience in the practice of law began when I moved to Anniston to enter an established firm. At that time, the firm had a case in Chancery which had been pending for several years. It was a bill to dissolve a corporation, and my partners were defending it. The Supreme Court had held there was no equity in the bill, and the complainants had amended the bill. Every time the respondents would give the complainants notice to submit, the complainants would get up a new amendment to the bill, and they kept this up so long that the respondents, in desperation, finally settled the case on the advice. of Samuel Untermeyer, of New York City, in order to get rid of a matter that was worrying them a great deal. They were rich New Yorkers, and could no doubt well afford the settlement that was made, but my partners felt that no allegation the complainants could prove would give the bill equity, and that the money the respondents paid in order to get the case out of the way was that much taken away from them. This serves to illustrate the proposition that the complainant's right to unlimited amendments may be abused, and that it should be regulated in some way.

Suppose now that the respondent desires to delay an equity case. All he needs to do is to put in a frivolous demurrer to the bill, and then appeal from the adverse decision on the demurrer. This may work a delay of more than a year. Some limitation or regulation should be placed upon these rights of the parties in equity. Of course a man should not have any of his substantive rights curtailed, but perhaps a requirement that amendments or demurrers should be verified might operate to the benefit of litigants. A mere demurrer should not be allowed, but a full answer, including pleas and demurrers, should be required as in the United States Court of Appeals on pleadings in Chancery cases should not be allowed except by special per

mission of the trial judge. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length upon illustrations of the delays of Chancery practice. Every member of this Association has ro doubt at some time had occasion to wish there were some

way of hurrying matters. Much was accomplished, of course, by the Consolidated Court Bill of 1915; but in the respects above indicated, if not in many others, there is room for beneficial changes in the law, which I think the Association should recommend.

Since my admission to the Bar, I have handled only a very few criminal cases, and hence I am not so familiar with the criminal procedure as with that in other branches of the law. I know, however, that in the administration. of the criminal law there is the same lack of expedition. in a large number of cases. This delay is not at all necessary. I remember reading years ago about the case of Dr. Hawley Crippen, a London dentist, who had murdered his wife and burned her body in the furnace. He was captured on an ocean liner on his way to America. Almost immediately upon his return to England, he was tried and convicted. He appealed, and the appeal was heard and decided against him at once. My recollection is that within ten days from the date of his trial, he had prosecuted his appeal, the appeal had been decided against him, and he had been executed. If the busines of the criminal courts can be transacted in that way in England, there is no reason why we lawyers of Alabama should not see that a similar system is inaugurated in our State.

This speedy administration of justice, no doubt, is one of the prime factors in preventing crime in England, and it may be that the difference between the two systems has much to do with the fact that there are more murders right here in Birmingham in a year than there are in the whole of England in the same length of time. I think that one reason for the lynchings we have is the knowledge on the part of the people that when a criminal case gets into the courts, there is no telling when it will get out. If