Continued from page 151 since World War II the Judicial Branch has placed almost total emphasis on the protection of individual rights and freedom, while at the same time the Legislative and Executive Branches advocate, and in the case of the former have enacted into law, more and more programs which, whether by design or happenstance, limit individual rights and freedoms. Economic benefit supposedly resulting from the latter have made these programs palatable to the American pUblic, but nevertheless their effect on the freedom of individual movement is apparent every day of our lives. At this point in the history of NFl, we do not have sufficient cost data to justify approval of this additional governmental regimentation of our social order even on the basis of hoped for economic benefit. An even greater erosionary effect on a social order is the concept, under any NFl proposal that would substitute it for the present system (the South Dakota plan does not so substitute), of right and wrong. The first known code of laws ever written came from the mind of Hammurabi (21252080 B.C.), the 6th King of the first dynasty of Babylon. That code, and all that have been devised since and designed as was it to define legal prerogatives and penalties with a motivation of justice and fair play, have as their cornerstone the recognition of right and wrong, both civil and criminal, with a system of punishment for wrongful activity. Civil
wrongs and publishments therefore were provided in the Code of Hammurabi; and while social orders that have come into being since have abandoned the method of punishment calling for an eye for an eye (penalties for capital crimes excepted), the idea of right and wrong and civil reparations for the latter has been an everdeveloping and expanding concept in man's relation to man. Long ago it was recognized that the careless person can disrupt the peace and happiness of a well-ordered society sometimes with as great an impact as can the criminal. Therefore, the peace, health, safety and welfare of the social order is best served by some system of punishment for a defined civil wrong. If for no other reason that punishment serves to make most men move more cautiously, rather than rashly, in their daily activity. It serves also to bring to the mind of man, consciously and SUb-consciously, a keener sense of right and wrong in its broadest sense. Certainly it is wrong for a man to operate a motor vehicle, whether deliberately or carelessly, in such a way as to injure or kill a fellow human being. However, the fact of the matter is that this is a daily event in our society the annual statistics of which include thousands of deaths, millions of injuries and astronomical economic loss. In the face of this major rightwrong factor in our society, the proponents of NFl would do away with this concept. We conclude that this is pure retrogression. What we really need are more ways to make the rash
Eleventh Tax Institute (With CPA's) Nov. 30, Dec. 1, 1972 Holiday Inn Little Rock, Arkansas 20th Mid-Year Meeting House of Delegates Semi-Annual Meeting January 18-20, 1973 Arlington Hotel Hot Springs, Arkansas
House of Delegates Special Meeting September 21, 1972 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas Fall Legal Institute September 22-23, 1972 Sheraton Motor Inn Little Rock, Arkansas
PAGE 152
12th Oil & Ga. Institute April 12, 13, 1973 Majestic Hotel Hot Springs, Arkansas 75th Annual Meeting House of Delegates Annual Meeting June 6-9, 1973 Arlington Hotel Hot Springs, Arkansas
and careless drivers more conscious of the consequences of their wrongful conduCt. III. IF SUCH A PROPOSAL IS DESIRABLE, WHICH ONE OF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED NFl PLANS NOW ON THE AMERICAN SCENE WOULD BE THE BEST PLAN FOR ARKANSAS? Our conclusions that any NFl plan which includes as a part of its concept the propositions of (1) compUlsory purchase of insurance, and (2) substitution of its compensation plan for the present right-wrong system, is not desirable, makes this portion of our inquiry moot. We shall continue to watch for any and all developments in this area and should any arise in the future we will carefully study them and report. IV. CAN SUCH A PROPOSAL BE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF ARKANSAS? We have concluded that any NFl plan that proposes to substitute, to any degree, its system of automobile injury reparations for the present right-wrong system, if enacted by the General Assembly of Arkansas, would be contrary to two provisions of our present Constitution. Article 2, Section 7, as amended by Amendment 16, provides: "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law. . ." See Haynes Drilling Corp. v Smith, 200 Ark. 1098; and Standard Pipe Line Co. v Burnett, 188 Ark. 491. And, Article 5, Section 32, as amended by Amendment 26, provides: " ...no law shall be enacted limiting the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death or for injuries to persons or property. . . " See Anderson v Sanderson & Porter, 146 F(2) 58. These cited Constitutional provisions would seem to clearly prevent the Arkansas Legislature from enacting any law detracting from the present right-wrong system of making reparation for death, injury and property damage, whether resulting from automobile accidents or otherwise. J.L. "Bex" Shaver, G.D. Walker, Joe Woodward, Ed I. Staten, Dale Price, Bruce T. Bullion (ALlC) Committeeman W.A. Eldredge, concurs in the result. ..
Jr.
THE ARKANSAS LAWYER