courts, and the authority to try misdemeanors is concurrently granted to the city and county courts. In the country counties of Georgia this operates as a very great hardship and needless burden upon the accused as well as upon the public treasury. To illustrate: In one of the country counties of this State the jail fees in 1898 were in round numbers, $1,800. In 1899 the jail fees were in round numbers, $2,100. When the superior court of that county convened the records show that about seventy-five per cent. of the prisoners confined in the jail pleaded guilty. Of those thus confined in jail there was but one charged with a capital offense. It will be observed, therefore, that at least seventy-five per cent. of this jail expense was mere waste, both to the accused and to the public. Waste to the accused because the penalty imposed did not necessarily give the defendant credit for the time incarcerated in jail; and a waste to the public because it was utterly useless to maintain such a jail expense when the prisoners were clamoring for the privilege of pleading guilty.

Of course in the city counties where the superior or criminal courts, like the door of a certain undesirable region, are always open, this could not occur, but in the country counties where the superior court meets for one or two weeks semi-annually, the percentage of time that prisoners are detained in jail is very much augmented and extended.

If the condition of the county just indicated is a fair index of other similar counties in Georgia, that is, if the jail fees range from $1,800 to $2,000 per annum, it will be observed that in the 137 counties (except the two or three where there are large cities and the courts are constantly in session) the waste must be enormous, and therefore the general welfare and the intelligent administration of public affairs, as well as the consideration of the right of the accused before trial and the due process of law, demands that such a condition be relieved.

We recommend, therefore:

1st. That the city courts in the several counties having such courts, in addition to misdemeanors, be authorized to try all

felony cases that may be reduced to misdemeanors by the recommendation of the trial jury, and that a bill of exceptions be allowed from this court to the judge of the superior court, whose final judgment shall be conclusive. This would give relief to the conjested condition of the jail, save the public the needless expense of maintaining these prisoners in jail and relieve the the prisoners of the needless detention before trial, and thus accentuate in the public mind the speedy and just administration of the law.

This recommendation is not intended to deprive any official of the costs to which he may be entitled. The solocitors-general, the sheriffs and the clerks, like all public servants, are entitled to a fair and just compensation, and if these recommendations should be carried into effect the legislation effectuating it should provide for the compensation of these officials.

2d. That capital offenses and the cases now exclusively reserved by the Constitution be retained in the superior court, with the right to except to the Supreme Court.

3d. That the Constitution be so amended as to authorize the legislation herein recommended.

These recommendations are intended as mere suggestions. They are not the formal report of your committee, as the several duties of the individual members of the committee made it impracticable for all of them to get together at a fixed time and place; but it has been approved by a majority of the committee, and therefore these suggestions are made with the hope that they will evoke in this body and in the public mind such consideration and discussion as will ultimately evolve and mold a graduated and symmetrical judicial system, which will render just and uniform and as inexpensive as possible the administration of justice in this great State.

Respectfully submitted,

HAMILTON MCWHORTER, Chairman.

APPENDIX D.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS.

Mr. President:

Among the standing committees appointed under the by-laws of this Association is the following:

"8. A Committee on Legal Ethics, who shall be charged with the duty of reducing to the form of rules or canons the principles of ethics regulating the relations of lawyers to the courts, the public, their clients and each other; with the further duty of taking such action as they may deem best, in case any departures from these principles by members of the bar of the State come to their notice or are brought to their attention."

The scope of the duties devolved upon the committee, therefore, cover two classes of subjects: (1) The reduction to the form of rules ethical principles governing the public and private relations of lawyers. (2) The duty of taking appropriate action in case of a violation of such principles by the members of the bar of this State, whether members of the Association or not.

No grievances have been brought to the attention of the committee during the past year. The lawyers have been decorous, dutiful and industrious, sharers with other portions of the business community in the common prosperity, and hopeful of the future in view of the vast strides which are everywhere being taken in the field of social and industrial well-being.

In reference to the part of the by-law quoted above, which concerns itself with the formulation of rules for the guidance of lawyers in the domain of morals and ethics, it is not to be understood that the committee appointed for any one year of the Association's life is expected to prepare and present a complete system or code of ethics exhaustive in scope and authoritative in nature. The work of the annual committees is necessarily frag

mentary, and suggestive rather than legislative. Annual accretions, added by the annual reports of successive committees, may, after the lapse of years, result in the preservation upon our records of a system or body of principles in this important part of the lawyer's life and work, which will prove instructive and valuable, and no inconsiderable aid in the upbuilding of lofty character. Honor and rectitude consciously realized within in his own breast and publicly exhibited without in his own bearing and conduct, is of infinitely more concern to the lawyer than pecuniary success. Better die poor and live rich in the appreciation of posterity than accumulate fortune by questionable means, with the inevitable judgment of his cotemporaries, he is a smart lawyer but an undeniable scoundrel!' A brilliant and well-informed mind, lax in principle and in moral restraints, may indeed find work to do, and enough work to do to earn the reputation of being a successful lawyer. In every community are a certain number of clients who have soiled linen to rub and rinse before judges and juries, and such patrons need the services of a man to stand at the fuller's tub who is not too fastidious to foul his fingers. The public sentiment of the bar ought to be strong enough to destroy his influence, and so discourage, if not defeat, his employment. The upbuilding of such a sentiment, strong enough to be effective, is a work of slow growth, and it is the considerate and patient work of the Bar Association to foster it by constant iteration, and reiteration of principles sometimes like to be overlooked in the physical hurry and intellectual waste of a busy lawyer's life.

1. A truly great lawyer must be a truly good man. As has been well said, "Let it be remembered and treasured in the heart of every student, that no man can be a truly great lawyer who is not in every sense of the word, a good man. A lawyer without the most sterling integrity may shine for awhile with meteoric splendor, but his light will soon go out in the blackness of darkness. It is not in every man's power to rise to eminence by distinguished abilities. It is in every man's power, with few

exception, to attain respectability, competence and usefulness." Sharswood's Legal Ethics, p. 168.

The word "good" in this connection is used as a moral rather than a religious distinction. A perfect morality may, as the theologians assert, involve a recognition of the claims of our blessed Saviour, and an humble and inflexible reference of conduct to the standard He set up, as the motive of action. Mr. Gladstone lost nothing by his Christ-likeness. The restricted use, however, of the term "good" as applied to the "great" lawyear now under discussion at least covers an enlightened rectitude of heart and of life. Many lawyers who were great and good men in the professional sense have not been able to accept the creed of any denomination of Christians, but familiarity with the inner struggles of such men often reveal their profound striving after light in this quarter, the discovery of which might be avowed consistently with that intellectual truthfulness which has developed in them into a habit of mind. Perhaps this is due, in part at least, to the insistent demand which the lawyer is ever making for accurate and well-ascertained facts; his refusal-not wilful or perverse, but inevitable from his hourly training to relax this demand, and his consequent inability to disassociate himself from the material and the real, and to enter the realm of faith and hope which, to many of his professional brethren, not abler or sincerer than himself, indeed, is at last more real than the material-the most real of all!

However this may be, the good lawyer who is also a great lawyer, is characterized by the utmost rectitude of intellect, of heart and of will as it finds expression in conduct. He is the faithful one, the loyal one, possessed of an immovable fidelity to himself, to the court, and to his client.

2. He should be faithful to himself. Truthfulness of intellect is the most difficult achievement in the domain of morals. A lawyer has no right to pronounce conclusively upon the truth of a fact or principle until he has discovered it to be true, and he has no right to conclude that he has made the discovery until he has exhausted his means of information. How important is