Ream, Cee a xt v60rvrc LEOX ! Advan VINIDYIA JO ALISHSAINNLIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ™ A s 1819 fo Gift of WILLIAM FRANKLIN WILLOUGHBY TO THE LIBRARY OF THE BureAvu OF Pusiic ADMINISTRATION ee ee ee eh ¥ ad a r a ¥ 4 Gy ry oI La id F t aeS ee ert er Te Se ee i i 8 ai t H a} | i By i i | F Bi | 4 H | ff i f -ee pe eee penn geen pease pomnpneeye ew ge a cee ee ] bY | H i id 14 " 9 3 i i ft sg ee AE OS eeTHE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE An Account of The Proceedings at the Organization of The Institute In Washington, D. C., on February 23, 1923 luternational, 236 Chestnut St., Philadelphis.THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE. Euinvu Roor, Honorary President. Grorce W. WickrrsHam, President. Brngamin N, Carpoz0, Vice-President. Grorce WeLwoop Murray, Treasurer. Wma. Draper Lewis, Secretary, 3400 Chestnut Street, Me Grorer EF. Aurnr, Henry M. Bates, Philadelphia, Pa. mbers of the Council: JoHN G. Mirgurn, Anbrew J. Monracus, Bunsamin N, Carpozo, Vioror Morawerz, Joun W. Davis, Grorce WeELWwoop Murray, Nerperr §. Haprey, Kuuerr N. Parker, Waa JAMES LIBRARY OF THI UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LEARN} NAVERSITY OF VIR ANCE, ALEXA) ee Hpwar fr wars, ‘SHAM, Wa, VW 4 = f) AN V& SN ¢ | De y ) 2. \ Q yf 92 LAA = \2 fy OG ft) | > Ih \| (x) rae @ |) t \ a 1 | i} f hy / y x \4 S| f = < Hy y \ | ¢ 5 ; mf ae ad, “Wy SQ ¥} se aa ent wy } > I 83 1 9 Z Pe 3 : a WILLIAM FRANKLIN WILLOUGHB\ rO THE LIBRARY OF THE BureAU OF Pusiic ADMINISTRATIONTHE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE An Account of The Proceedings of the Organization of The Institute In Washington. D. C., on Februaryee — RL ee ae ee ee eS eee eee Lor carE lyCONTENTS. PURPORT. 2 hs cay to eee We ce oe ee ae MINUTES OF MEETING BEFORE INCORPORATION ..... ROLL OF MEMBERS MINUTES OF First MEETING OF THE INSTITUTE \DDRESS OF ELIHU ROOT IN PRESENTING IREPORT OF CIMMISTITE 2 os ee a ee ee ee a ee ‘THEE OF DBPRATKS (ore oe ees De ie we oes TEST OF ADDRESSES AT THE DINNER: .« i... a secre CERTIFICATE GF [INCORPORATION <. <.. 22s 06 bens ee AWS a et ae ee ee i re cakes MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE ON APRIL 3, 1923....FOREWORD. The impelling foree which made the meeting in Washington possible has been the growing feeling among the members of the legal profession that the profession owes a duty to the public to improve the administration of justice. This feeling has found ex- pression, not only in numerous addresses at meetings [f the bar, but also in the of associations of members « recent activities of these associations. The formal steps leading to the formation of the Committee which issued the invitation to the Washing- ton meetine—the Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law—were taken by the Association of American Law Schools. In Chieago, on Tuesday, December 29, 1914, Professor Wesley N. Hohfeld of Yale read < paper on ‘‘A Vital School of Jurisprudence and Law’’ before the fourteenth annual meeting of the Associa- tion, in which he emphasized the duty and the ability of the great universities ‘‘to contribute towards the fundamental, conservative and permanent betterment of our legal institutions,’? (Report of Assn. Amer. Law Schools, 1914, pages 76, 137), and set forth in de- tail a possible program otf work for such a school. At the same meeting Professor Joseph H. Beale of the Harvard Law School read a paper on ‘‘The Necessity for a Study of Legal System,’’ in which he pointed out the existing dissatisfaction with law and its adminis- tration, taking the position that irrespective of what the explanation of this dissatisfaction, ‘‘the situation must be studied and the law changed, if change be necessary, by those who are learned in it.’’ (Report of Assn. Amer. Law Schools, 1914, pages 31, 34.) At the annual meeting of the Association in 1910, Dean Harry S. Richards, of the Law School of theUniversity of Wisconsin, in his address as President of the Association, expressed the hope that ‘‘in time the idea back of Professor Hohfeld’s paper may be realized by the establishment, under the auspices of this Association, of a center for such studies in Wash- ineton where students can come in contact from time to time with representative American and English scholars in these broad: lines of jurisprudence.’’ (Re- port of Assn. of Amer. Law Schools, 1915, pages 60, 75-76.) This suggestion was at once acted on by the Assoeiation. The war interrupted the meetings of the Associa- tion, and it was not until 1920 that the matter was again taken up by the Association. This time it was suggested by its then President, Professor Hugene A. Gilmore, of the Law School of the University of Wis- econsin, who in his address to the Association suggested that the reports submitted in 1916 be again considered, and ‘‘that a committee of five be appointed for the better organization of the round-table conferences of the Association looking to their ultimate perfection as an institute of law.’’ (Report of Association of Amer- ican Law Schools. 1920, pages (0; 103-150,)> Phe sug oestion was acted on at the same meeting, the Com- mittee which was appointed consisting of Joseph H. Beale, of the Harvard Law School, Chairman, Henry M. Bates, Dean of the Law School of the University of Michigan, Ernst Freund, of the Law School of the University of Chicago, Frederick Green of the Law School of the University of [llinois, Edmund M. Mor- gan of the Yale Law School, Harlan F. Stone, Dean of the Law School of Columbia University, and Wil- liam Draper Lewis of the Law School of the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, Secretary. James P. Hall, Dean of the Law School of the University of Chicago, as the new President of the Association, was also a member of the Committee ex officio.This Committee in its report submitted at the an- nual meeting of the Association December 0J, 1921, recommended ‘‘that a committee be appointed with power to invite the appointment of similiar committees representing the courts, the bar associations, the pro- fessional and other scientific and learned bodies en- gvaged in the study of the substantive and adjective law and its administration, for the purpose of jointly creating a permanent organization for the improve- ment of the law; with power to name a time and place for the meeting of the conference of these eommit- tees.’ The resolution recommended was adopted, and the members of the Committee, now known as the ‘$“Gommittee on the Establishment of a Juristic Cen- ter,’? were reappointed to carry out the purposes of the resolution. (Report of Assn. Amer. Law Schools, 1921, page 116.) As the result of the activities of this Committee on the Establishment of a Juristic Center the follow ine persons met on May 10, 1922, in the Bar Associa tion of the City of New York, subsequentls adjourn ine to the Harvard Club: Joseph H. Beale George W. Wickersham James Byrne Hrnst Freund Joseph P. Chamberlain James P. Hall Albert M. Kales William Draper Lewis Edward J. MeGuire John G. Milburn Edmund Ff. Morgan George Welwood Murray John E. O’Brien Thomas I. Parkinson James B. Reynolds Hlihu Root Harlan FE. Stone Henry W. Tatt Charles C. Burlingham Samuel Williston Those present constituted themselves a (C‘ommiuttee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, the object of the Com-+ mittee being the preparation of a Report on the establishment of such an organization and the work which it should first carry on, and the submission of the Report to a representative gathering of the Amer- ican bar. 1, rom time to time in the progress of its work the Committee added tO its membership those who were invited but were not able to attend the first meeting, and those who were assisting the Committee in the preparation of its Report. Those who became mem- bers of the Committee subsequent to the organization meetine were: Henry M. Bates Charles A. Boston Irederick R. Coudert lrederick Green George G. Bogert Arthur L.-Corbin John W. Davis Wilham D. Guthrie Learned Hand Herbert S. Hadley Julian W. Mack Victor Morawetz Herbert Harley Alexander C. King R. C. Leffinewell Wiliam E. Mikel] Roseoe Pound Cuthbert W. Pound Charles Strauss John H. Wiemore At the organization meeting on May 10th, Elihu Root was elected Chairman. George W. Wickersham Vice-Chairman, George Welwood Murray, Treasurer, William Draper Lewis, Executive Secretary, and James Byrne, James P. Hall. John G. Milburn, Harlan F’, Stone and Albert M. Kales, members of the Execu- tive Committee. [he Committee could not have undertaken the work of preparing the Report without the hnancial as- sistance of the Carnegie Corporation, which on May 44, 1922, made a. donation to the Committee of $25,000. On May 27th the work on the Report was started by the appointment of Joseph H. Beale, Ben-jamin N. Cardozo, Albert M. Kales, Samuel Williston and William Draper Lewis as Reporters, and of Henry M. Bates, William D. Guthrie, Frederick W. Lehman, Victor Morawetz, Roscoe Pound, Harlan F. Stone, John H. Wigmore, and R. C. Leffinewell as Critics. The death of Mr. Kales shorty after his appointment deprived the Committee of his valuable services. Mr. Lehman, being unable to serve as Critie, William E. Mikell was subsequently appointed in his place. On the Reporters was imposed the duty of pre- paring, with the assistance of the Critics, a preliminary draft of the Report. In order that the Reporters might have the benefit of as much intelligent sugges- tion as possible, the Committee called a conference of Reporters, Crities, specially invited guests and mem- bers of the Committee in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on June 28th and 29th. At this conference, in acecord- ance with a carefully pre-arranged agenda, the causes of existing’ uncertainties and of other defects in our law, and the object, matter and form of the Report were discussed. During the next six months the Report was de veloped as the result of the individual work and fre. quent conferences of the Reporters, the criticisms and suggestions of the various tentative drafts by the Critics, and the subsequent consideration of the mat- ter finally submitted first, by the members of the lixee utive Committee and finally by the Committee itself. Having completed the Report on January 11, 19253, the Committee directed it to be published as the state- ment of the Committee with respect to the establish- ment of an American Law Institute and the work which such an Institute should undertake to do. At the same time it took steps to carry out the second object of its ereation, the submission of the Report and of its reeommendations for consideration and ac- ee ee eee ae ee ee ia~ 6 tion by a representative gathering of the American bar. Invitations to meet in Washington, D. C., on Feb- ruarv 23, 1923, were sent to the following: ‘The Ghief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; the senior judge otf each of the Federal Cireuit Courts of Appeals (or other representative of the Court appointed by such senior judge); the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of the United States; the Chief Justice of the highest court in each state (or a representative of the court appointed by the Chief Justice); the Presi- dent and the eX Presidents ot The American Bar Association and the members of its Executive Commit- tee: the members of the General Council of The Amer- ican Bar Association: the President of each State Bar Association (or person appointed by the President to represent the Association) ; the Dean ot each school belonging to the Association of American Law Schools (or person appointed by the Dean to represent the school): the President of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology (or person appointed by the President to represent the Institute); the President of the American Branch of the International Law Association (or person appointed by the President f the American Judicature Society COF DEFsONn appointed by the President to represent the Society ) ; the President to represent the Association ) : the President « of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uni- form State Laws: the Chairman or senior member of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in each state, and some two hundred other leaders of the legal profession in the United States.MINUTES OF THE MEETING PORATION. BEFORE INCOR- Minutes oF a Meertine or Jupers, Lawyers anp Law TracHerRS HELD In THE AUDITORIUM oF MremortiAu CoNTINENTAL Hatt, Wasnineton, D. C., on FRI- DAY, H'EBRUARY 20, 1923, aT THE INVITATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE HSTABLISHMENT OF A PERMA- NENT ORGANIZATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE Law. Elihu Root, of New York, as chairman of the Com- mittee on the Establishment of a Permanent Oregani- zation for the Improvement of the Law, called the meeting’ to order at 10.15 A. M. (. A. Severance, of Minnesota, moved the election of Mr. Root as temporary chairman of the meeting and ealled for a vote upon his motion. The motion was unanimously agreed to and Mr Root thereupon took the chair. The chairman, in behalf of the Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, made a statement in regard to the work of the Committee and presented for the eonsideration of the meeting a printed report pre- pared by the Committee entitled ‘‘heport of the Com- mittee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organi- zation for the Improvement of the Law Proposing the Establishment of an American Law Institute.’’ (For text of Mr. Root’s address see p. 18, wifra. ) On motion of George B. Young, of Vermont, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the chairman shall appoint a secretary of the meeting. The chairman thereupon appointed Shippen Lewis, of Pennsylvania, secretary.On motion of Nathan William MacChesney, of Ill1- nois, duly seconded, it was Resolved. That the cards of admission issued bn the (‘ommittee whi h have been presented and eollected or which may be presented and collected before final adjournment of this meeting shall eonstitute the official roll of this meeting [Those marked * are also listed as representatives of another or- William Howard Taft, Chief Justice of the United States Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States Edw; rd or Sanford. Associate Justice, Supreme Lourt of the \ nited tates REPRESENTING U. S. CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL. Constantine J. Smyth, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, District of Columbia. KAlex. C. King, Judge, U. S. Circuit Court, Fifth Circuit. Georg W. Ande rson, Judge, Besa ircuit ( ourt, First Circuit. Henry Wade Rogers, Senior Judge, U. S. Circuit Court, Second Circul Joseph Bufhngton, Senior Judge, UW S. Circuit Court, Biire Circuit REPRESENTING HIGHEST STATE COURS John C. Anderson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama. A. G. McAlister, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona. James H . Teller, { hie f Justice, Supreme Court of Colorado. George W. Wheeler, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Connecticut. Jefferson B. Browne, Justice, Supreme Court of Florida. Richard B. Russell, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia. Floyd E. Thompson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Illinois. Louis B. Ewbank, Judge, Supreme Court of Indiana. R. A. Burch, Justice, Supreme Court of Kansas. Albert M. Spear, Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Andrew Hunter Boyd, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland. Arthur P. Rugg, Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu- SCTIS.Tohn William Br Je hn W. Cordenio Frederick E Thomas W. Shelton, Executive Committee, A. ae a. 8 The ynas Minn. r Nort O’Do “Josiah Mar Kemp, secretary. A. B ... Baltimore M y; ; WSs \rizona Memb r (,eneral Cour nnell, Colorado Member, General ( vel, Delaware Member. General Co J. Morrill Chamberlin, District of Columbia M: S. Price Gilbert. Georgia Member. General C William Marshall Bullitt. Kentuck, cy Member, General Council. Wade Milli Char Rol )¢ Frank W. Will rles S, tt Lx Smith. Robert P. Shick, H. Wa iam ET, Robert R. “James W. s, Michigan Member, General Coun: 1c1] ~ouncil. mber, General ( ouncil. elle Whitman, New York Member, General Council Pennsylvania Member, Gener North Carolina Member, General Council al Council. Wells, Oklahoma Member, General Council. shington, Tennessee Member, General Council Burges, Texas Member. General Prentis, Virginia Member, General Vandervort, West Virginia Member, Council. Council, General Council.10 REPRESENTING STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS. Arkansas, Ashley Cockrill, Little Rock. Samuel H. Kinsley, Colorado Springs, Marvel, President. Colorado, Josiah Wilmington, Delaware, Illinois, John R. Montgomery, Chicago, Vice-President. Albany, Former President. Jewett, New Stoll, Harley, Indiana, Charles L. Richard C. Lexington, President. Charles F. | [« vey Kentuc ky ; Maryland, Massachusetts, Baltimore. Gage, Worcester, Thomas New Jersey, Chauncey G. Parker, Newark, President. New York, De Lancey Nicoll, New President. President Harris, Cleveland, Mel riTT, Comstock, George B. Frank C Richard B. Utah, W. D. Riter, Salt Lake City. Virginia, Edward P. West Virginia, T. S. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Rh¢ de [sland, Pr yvidence, Buford, Lawrenceville, President. Riley, Wheeling, President. Wyoming, Charles E. Winter, Casper. REPRESENTING NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF SIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS. William H. Arnold, Texarkana, Chairman, Arkansas sioners. ( ’ Donnell, Denver, Colorado ao, sioner. President. President. Cl President. York City, Vice-President. )M MIS- Commis- Commis- Com- George E. Beers, New Haven, Chairman, Connecticut missioners. Walter C. Clephane, Washington, Chairman, District of bia ers. President of the Nathan William MacChesney, Chicago, ference, R. L. Tullis, Baton Rouge, Chairman, Louisiana sioners. John Hinkley, Baltimore, Maryland sioner. Hollis R. Bailey, Boston, Colum- Commission- National Con- Commis- Commis- Chairman, Massachusetts Com- missioners. Arthur H. Ryall, Escanaba, missioner. C. A. Severance, St. Paul, sioner. W. HH, i. Piatt, Kansas City, Missouri sioner. Leroy Percy, Greenville, Mississippi missioner, Michigan Commis- Minnesota Commis- Commis- Com-Mark A. Sullivan, Jersey City, New Jersey Com- missioner. *George G. Bogert, Ithaca, New York Com- missioner, M. Botts, Albuquerque, Chairman, New Mexico Com- missioners, Walter George Smith, Philadelphia, Pennsyivania Com- missioner. E. McDonald, Winnsboro, Chairman, South Carolina Commissioners, W. H. Washington, Nashville, Chairman, Tennessee Commis- sioners., . ke ener. Dallas. Texas Commission- er. Horace H. Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah Commissioner, George B. Young, Montpelier, Vermont Commis- sioner. James W. Vandervort, Parkesburg, West Virginia Com- missioner. REPRESENTING MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS. Boston University School of Law, Homer Albers, Dean. Catholic University of American School of Law, Peter J. McLough- lin, Dean. *Columbia University School of Law, Harlan F. Stone, Dean. Cornell University College of Law, George G. Bogert, Dean. Emory University, Lamar School of Law, Samuel C. Williams, Dean. George Washington University Law School, Merton L. Ferson, Dean. Harvard University Law School, Eugene Wambaugh, Professor of Law. Indiana University School of Law, Charles M. Hepburn, Dean. McGill University Faculty of Law, Herbert A. Smith, Professor of Law. *N orthwestern University School of Law, John Ei. Wigmore, Dean. State University of Iowa College of Law, H. C. Jones, Dean. Syracuse University College of Law, Frank R. Walker, Dean. Tulane University of Louisiana College of Law, Rufus E. Foster, Dean. University of California School of Jurisprudence, Orrin K. McMur- ray, Professor of Law. University of Chicago Law School, James P. Hall, Dean. University of Cincinnati College of Law, Alfred B. Benedict, Dean. University of Colorado School of Law, John D. Fleming, Dean. University of Illinois College of Law, Albert J. Harno, Dean. University of Minnesota Law School, Everett Fraser, Dean.ot iE SSOT lerbert dS Hadley, Profe ( ~ arned Hand, Judge, U. S. District rbert Harley, \merican Alex, C. King, Judge, U. S. Circuit G ing Russell C. Lefiingwell, New York William Draper Lewis, Professor of Law School. Edward J. McGuire, E. Mikell, Dean, University of New York City. William Pennsylvania Law School. John G. Milburn, New York City. Victor Morawetz, New York City.Edmund M. Morgan, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law. George Welwood Murray, New York City. John E. O’Brien, New York City. Thomas I. Parkinson, Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law. James B. Reynolds, President, Institute of Criminal Law and Crim- inology. Elihu Root, New York City. Harlan F. Stone, Dean, Columbia University School of Law. Henry W. Taft, New York City. John H. Wigmore, Dean, Northwestern University School of Law. George W. Wickersham, New York City. Samuel Williston, Professor of Law, Harvard University Law School. PERSONS SPECIALLY INVITED ARKANSAS. George B. Rose, Little Rock. CALIFORNIA. ) Annette Abbott Adams, Law Enforcement Committee, A. B. A., San Francisco. George E. Crothers, San Francisco. O. K. Cushing, San Francisco. Edward J. McCutchen, San Francisco. COLORADO. John H. Fry, Denver. William W. Grant, Jr., Denver. Paul W. Lee, Fort Collins. Charles S. Thomas, Denver. CoNNECTICUT. Edwin M. Borchard, Professor of Law, Yale Univeristy School of Law. Charles E. Claric Associate Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law. Walter W. Cook, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law. Harrison Hewitt, New Haven. Charles D. Lockwood, Stamford. Ernest G. Lorenzen, Professor of Law, Yale University School o Law. Edward S. Thurston, Professor of Law, Yale University School o ae Law. George D. Watrous, New Haven.of Americ: Peyton (sordon. U 5 \ttorney, District of Columbia, Washington harles Noble Gr SOry, Washington harles E. Hughes, State Department, Washingtor Charles V. Imlay, Washington Helen E. Jamison, President, \Women’s Bar Association, Washington Charl \. Keigwin, Professor of La Georgetown University, Wash ineto William B. King, Washington Walter I. McCoy, Chief Justice, Supreme Court o1 District of Co- Pickens engle. President, Federal Bar Association, Washington Mary O’Toole, Judge, Municipal Court, W ashington. Pall Tl) Dy \ ~ ~ James Brown Score. Americal Society ol iternational Law, Was! ington Hector G. Spaulding, Professor of Law, George Washington Uni- versity Law School, Washington. Wendell P. Stafford Judge, Supreme Court of District of Columbia, ‘ \\ ) Vashington Josiah A. Van Orsdel, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, Washington. William C. Van Vleck, Professor of Law, George Washington Uni- versity Law School, Washington. Charles Warren, Washington George T. Weitzell, Washington Clarence R. Wilson, Washington. GEORGIA. Robert C. Alston, Atlanta. Samuel Nesbitt Evins, Atlanta. John D. Humphries, Judge, Superior Court, Atlanta. \lexander R. Lawton, Savannah. E. Marvin Underwood, Atlanta. Edgar Watkins, AtlantaOtto Raym Jacob M. Walter F Victor Elting Walter L William B Marcus A Roy | ). Ke hn, \Ibe rt ( f aw, Florace 5S .ocourek, Edgar B. Tolman nal, Chicagt Frank C. Dailey, Charles W \. Hollingswortl J). E. E. Markley, Lee Bond, J. W. Challis, T B. Garver. Percy N. Booth, Helm Bruce, \llen D. Cole, Maysville, Vice-President, clation. ( reoTrge Re Robert Fi. Kentucky State Hunt, Lexington J. D. Mocquot, Paducah. Henry P. Dart, H. G. Dufour,ee ona ei ees ——— 16 Charles E. Dunbar, Jr., New Orleans. Walker B. Spencer, New Orleans. George H. Terriberry, New Orleans. MARYLAND. Alexander Armstrong, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore. Carroll T. Bond, Baltimore. Henry D. Harlan, Baltimore. Charles McH. Howard, Baltimore. Alfred S. Niles, Baltimore. T. Scott Offutt, Chief Judge, Third Judicial ( ircuit Court, Associate Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals, Towson. Edgar Allan Poe, Baltimore. MASSACHUSETTS. John Weston Allen, Boston. George A. Bacon, Springfield. 2 Benton, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Belmont. Jay Robert G. Dodge, Boston. Melvin M. Johnson, Boston. Frederick W. Mansfield, Boston. Oscar A. Marden, Justice, District Court of Southern Norfolk, Boston. George R. Nutter, Boston. Reginald Heber Smith, Boston. Moorfield Storey, Boston. W. Cushing Wait, Justice, Superior Court of Massachusetts, Medford. Bentley W. Warren, Boston. MICHIGAN. Clarence A. Lightner, Detroit. Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge, U. S. District Court, E. D. Michigan, Detroit. MINNESOTA. Stiles W. Burr, St. Paul. Charles W. Farnham, St. Paul. Henry E. Randall, St. Paul. F. H. Stinchfield, Minneapolis. Francis B. Tiffany, St. Paul. Missourl. P. Taylor Bryan, St. Louis. Forrest C. Donnell, St. Louis. Daniel N. Kirby, St. Louis. W. L. Sturdevant, Missouri Commissioner on Uniform State Laws.Guy A. Thompson, St. Louis. Edward J. White, St. Louis. Fred L. Williams, St. Louts. New JERSEY. Frank Bergen, Newark. Elmer King, Morristown. Charles K. Burdick, Professor of Law, Cornell University College of Law, Ithaca. George W. Burleigh, New York City. Julius Henry Cohen, New York City. Martin Conboy, New York City. William A. Day, New York City Simon Fleischman, Buffalo. Frederick Geller, New York City. Moses H. Grossman, New York City. Ledyard P. Hale, Canton Warnick J. Kernan, Utica. Howard Thayer Kingsbury, New York City. Louis Marshall, New York City. Robert Grier Monroe, New York City. Adelbert Moot, Buffalo Harry D. Nims, New York City Herman Oliphant, Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law, New York City Alfred R. Page, Justice, Supreme Court of New York, New York City. Herbert Parsons, New York City Charles W. Pierson, New York City. Wilson M. Powell, New York City. William L. Ransom, New York City. Alfred Z. Reed, New York City. Elihu Root, Jr.. New York City. Abram J. Rose, New York City. Henry L. Stimson, New York City. Charles H. Strong, New York City, Secretary, \ssociation Bar of the City of New York. Van Vechten Veeder, New York City. Joseph Wheless, ‘New York City. Philip J. Wickser, Buffalo. John M. Woolsey, New York City. OHIO. Frank F. Dinsmore, President, Cincinnati Bar Association, Cincinnati. Guy W. Mallon, Cincinnati.Waite, Cincinnat oan \m homa ( dy lt Pitts] Jaker, Harrisburg Biddle, Philadelphia Wolf Bikle, Professor School, Philadelphi. Bohlen, Professor School, Philadelphi. Bracken, Philadelphia Dalzell ittsburgh Drinker, J1 Philadel Fertig \ssistant Directo vi la OCsT J 1da Fs fm state | 5 Farrisbu Heisler, Philadelphia Hutchinson Philadelphia NeeG ra fe SSO] of chool, Philadelphia ught, Sunbury. Lewis, Philadelphia McKeehan, Judge, harton Peppe r, Philade Kawle, Philadelphia. Reed, Pittsburgh om Resolved, Phat the by-laws suggested bv the Committee on the KMstablishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, as read by Mr. Wickersham, are approved, with the amendments which have been agreed to. On motion of Constantine J. Smyth. of the Dis- trict of Columbia. duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the Chairman and four per- sons to be appointed by him shall constitute a Committee on Incorporation. The Committee shall incorporate the Institute under the laws of thi District of Columbia by subseribing and record- ing a certificate in the form approved by this meeting. The Committee shall hold an organiza- tion meeting, shall adopt the by-laws approved by this meeting, and shall elect as members of the Institute all those whose names appear on the roll of members of this meeting. The chair appointed as members of the Commit tee on Incorporation to aet with him George T. Weit- zel, Peyton Gordon, Walter R. MeCoy and Constan- tine J. Smyth, all of the District of Columbia. On motion of George W. Wickersham, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That a recess shall be taken until 2.45 P.M. The meeting was again called to order by the ehairman at 2.40 P. M. The chairman reported on behalf of the Com- mittee on Incorporation that the certificate of in- corporation had been filed, that the ineorporators hadre iia eee STAT = TERE Les FQ « met, that they had elected Elihu Root, of New York, chairman, and Shippen Lewis, of Pennsylvania, sec- retary of the organization meeting, and that they had elected as members of the corporation those persons whose names appear on the roll of members of the meeting held in Washington, on February 23, 1923, at the invitation of the Committee on the Hstablishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, the election to take effect upon their respec- tive assents. The chairman announced that the secretary would eall the roll of the meeting and that those who ac- cepted election to membership in The American Law Institute would answer ‘‘aye’’ at the call of their names. ‘The secretary ealled the roll and the following per- sons answered ‘‘aye’’ Homer Albers Percy N. Booth Robert C. Alston Kdwin M. Borchard George E. Alter Charles A. Boston Charles B. Ames Clarence M. Botts David Werner Amram \ndrew Hunter Boyd George W. Anderson francis B. Bracken John C. Anderson William Brosmith \lexander Armstrong Calvin Brown William H. Arnold Jefferson B. Browne George A. Bacon Helm Bruce Hollis R. Bailey P. Taylor Bryan Joseph H. Beale Joseph Bufhngton Middleton Beaman Edward P. Buford George E. Beers William Marshall Bullitt \lfred B. Benedict R. A. Burch Jay R. Benton Charles K. Burdick Frank Bergen William H. Burges Francis B. Biddle George W. Burleigh Henry Wolf Bikle Stiles W. Burr Ueorge G&, Bogert George C.: Butte Francis H. Bohlen James Byrne Horace L. Bomar Benjamin N. Cardozo Carroll T. Bond J. McF. Carpenter Lee Bond J. W. ChallisJ. Morrill Chamberlin Joseph P. Chamberlain Charles E. Clark Prederic L. Clark Walter Clark Walter C. Clephane Ashley Cockrill Julius Henry Cohen Allen D. Cole Richard B. Comstock Martin Conboy George E. Crothers O. K. Cushing Frank C. Dailey William S. Dalzell Henry P. Dart John W. Davis William A. Day Jacob M. Dickinson Frank F. Dinsmore Walter F. Dodd Robert G. Dodge Forrest C. Donnell Henry S. Drinker, Jr. H. G. Dufour Charles E. Dunbar, Jr. Walter F. Dunmore William N. Dykman Victor Elting Samuel Nesbitt Evins Louis B. Ewbank Charles W. Farnham Charles J. Faulkner Merton L. Ferson John H. Fertig Walter L. Fisher Herbert Fitzpatrick Simon Fleischmann John D. Fleming Rufus E. Foster Everett Fraser John H. Fry Thomas Hovey Gage Paul H. Gaither T, BF. Garver Frederick Geller Clarence N. Goodwin ) 9g Peyton Gordon William W. Grant, Jr. Frederick Green Theodore F. Green Charles Noble Gregory Moses H. Grossman Herbert S. Hadley Ledyard P. Hale William Browne Hale James Parker Hall Learned Hand William M. Hargest Henry D. Harlan Charles F. Harley Herbert Harley Albert J. Harno George B. Harris R. H. Hawkins Roland C. Heisler Charles M. Hepburn Harrison Hewitt John Hinkley Frank H. Hiscock A. Hollingsworth Charles McH. Howard Charles E. Hughes John D. i Humphries George R. Hunt Arthur E. Hutchinson Charles V. Imlay Helen E. Jamison Charles L. Jewett Melvin M. Johnson H. C. Jones Edwin R. Keedy Roy D Keehn Joseph L. Kelly W. Thomas Kemp Warnick J. Kernan Alex. C. King Elmer King William B. King Howard Thayer Kingsbury Samuel H. Kinsley Daniel N. Kirby Harry S. Knight Albert KocourekSe EASES x CPO ate AYP fi si SETS ae ee ae ro = iz) 3a, DRESS CE, See ) \ lexander R. Lawton Paul W. Lee R CC. Leffingwell \ Charles B. Letton Shippen Lewis William Draper Lewis Clarence A. Lightner W. M. Lile Charles D. Lockwood Ernest G. Lorenzen Nathan William MacChesney Joseph Warren Madden Guy W. Mallon Frede rick W. Mansfield Oscar A. Marden James E. ! Markley Louis Marshall Carrington T. Marshall Clarence E. Martin A. G. McAlister James P. McBaine Walter I. McCoy Edward J. McCutchen Malcolm McDermott J. E. McDonald Frank C. McGirr Edward J. McGuire Charles L. McKeehan Homer H. McKeehan Colin P. McKinney Peter a McLoughlin Orrin K. McMurray John G. Milburn William N. Miller Wade Millis Julien C. Monnet Robert G. Monroe John R. Montgomery Joseph B. Moore Charles W. Moores Victor Morawetz Kdmund M. Morgan Roland S. Morris William W. Moss George Welwood Murray Bernard J. Myers | rank K Nebeker William S. Nelson Samuel J. Nicholls De Lancey Nicoll \lfred S. Niles Henry C. Niles Harry D. Nims T. G. Norris George R. Nutter Horace S. Oakley John E. O'Brien T. J. O'Donnell T. Scott Offutt Herman Oliphant Harry Olson \lfred R. Page Emmett N. Parker Thomas |. Parkinson Herbert Parsons Leroy Percy W. H. A. Piatt Charles W. Pierson Edgar Allan Poe Samuel G. Polley Frank M. Porter Wilson M. Powell Robert R. Prentis RO). Purdy Henry E. Randall William L. Ransom \lfred Z. Reed James B. Reynolds Me S: Richards r. S. Riley W. D. Riter Owen J. Roberts Henry Wade Rogers Elihu Root Elihu Root, Jr \bram J. Rose George B. Kose \rthur P. Ruge Richard B. Russell Arthur HH. Ryall IR I: saner William I. Schaffer James Brown Scott Cordenio A. Severanceol Thomas W. Shelton William R. Robert P. Shick ( yeorge Shiras, J . Tillinghast Edgar Bronson Tolman Robert Lee Tullis Herbert A. Smith Robert B. Tunstall Horace H. Smith Arthur J. Tuttle Reginald Heber Smith FE. Marvin Underwood Robert L. Smith James W. Vandervort Walter George Smith William C. Van Vleck William W. Smithers Van Vechten Veeder Constantine J. Smyth Frederick E. Wadhams Hector G. Spaulding William Cushing Wait Albert M. Spear Morrison R. Waite Walker B. Spencer Frank R. Walker Andrew Squire Eugene Wambaugh Wendell P. Stafford Bentley W. Warren Henry L. Stimson Charles Warren F. H. Stinchfield W. H. Washington Harley H. Stipp Edgar Watkins Richard C. Stoll George D. Watrous Harlan F. Stone George T. Weitzel Moorfield Storey Frank Wells Charles Strauss George W. Wheeler Charles H. Strong Joseph Wheless Mark A. Sullivan Edward J. White Thomas W. Swan George W. Wickersham John W. Sweeney Philip J. Wickser William H. Sweetland Fred L. Williams Henry W. Taft Samuel C. Williams William H. Taft Tyrrell Williams James H. Teller Hugh E. Willis George H. Terriberry Samuel Williston C. S. Thomas Clarence R. Wilson Floyd E. Thompson Robert H. Winn Guy A. Thompson Charles E. Winter Edward S. Thurston John M. Woolsey Francis B. Tiffany George B. Young The chairman thereupon declared that the cor- poration consisted of the incorporators and of those who had aecepted membership viva voce upon the roll eall. On motion of (yeorge W. Wickersham, duly SeCc- onded, it was Resolved, That this meeting shall resolve it- self into a meeting of the members of The Ameri- ean Law Institute.SS cre PY Oe RS ey ee MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN LAW IN- STITUTE. The organization meeting of the members of The American Law Institute was held in Memorial Conti- nental Hall, Washington, D. C., on Friday, February 93 “LOR at i Fr: M. The following incorporators were present: Exiavu Root, of New York; ConsTANTINE J. Smytu, of the District of Co- lumbia ; Grorap T. Werrzev, of the District of Colum- bia; Payton Gorpon, of the District of Columbia. Mr. Root ealled the meeting to order. On motion of Mr. Weitzel, duly seconded, Mr. Root was elected chairman of the meeting. On motion of Mr. Weitzel, duly seconded, Shippen Lewis, of Pennsylvania, was elected secretary of the meeting. The chairman reported that the certificate of in- corporation had been duly executed, acknowledged and reco rde L, On motion of Mr. Weitzel, duly seconded, the sec- retary was directed to spread upon the minutes a COpy of the certificate of incorporation as follows: CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THe AmERICAN Law INSTITUTE. Tus is ro Certiry that we, whose names are here- unto subscribed, citizens of the United States, a ma- jority of whom are citizens of the District of Columbia, have associated ourselves together, pursuant to pro-Nn wo) visions of Chapter XVIII, Sub-Chapter III, of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, approved March 38, 1901, and Acts of Congress amendatory thereto, under the corporate name of Tue AmeErRIcAN Law INSTITUTE. The term for which the society is organized is per- petual. The particular business and objects of the society are educational, and are to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and earry on scholarly and scientific legal work. The number of managers of the society, who shall be called councilors, shall for the first year of its ex- istence be twenty-one. Wirness our hands this twenty-third day of Feb- ruary, A. D., 19235. Wm. H. Tart, (Seal) CHarRues Hi. HuGHEs, (Seal) E.1uvu Root, (Seal) CoNSTANTINE J. Smytu, (Seal) Wauxrter I. McCoy, (Seal) Pryton GorDON, (Seal) GrorcE T. WEITZEL (Seal) District oF COLUMBIA, SS.: I. Howard 8S. LeRoy, a notary public in and for the District of Columbia do hereby certify that Wilham H. Taft, Charles E. Hughes, Elihu Root, Constantine J, Smyth, Walter L. McCoy, Peyton (yordon, and George T. Weitzel, parties to a certain Certificate of Incorporation, bearing date on the twenty-third day of February, 1923, and hereto annexed, personally ap-peared before me in said District, the said William ra, Taft, Charles KE. Hughes, Elihu Root, Constantine J. Smyth, Walter I. MeCoy, Peyton Gordon, and George T. Weitzel, being personally well known to me to be the persons who executed the said Certificate of In- corporation, and acknowledged the same to be their act and deed for the purposes therein named. GIVEN under my hand and notarial seal this twenty-third day of February, A. D., 1923. Howarp 8. LeRoy, (Seal) Notary Public. My commission as notary public expires on the eighteenth day of June, 1926. OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDs. Distriet of Columbia. THis is ro Crrtiry that the foregoing is a true and verified copy of the Certif icate of Incorporation of Tre American Law Institute and of the whole of said Certificate of Incorporation, as filed in this office the twenty-third day of February, AAD, 1925, [x Testimony Wuereor, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of this office this twenty- third day of February, A. D., 1923. Ropert W. Durron, (Seal) Deputy Recorder of Deeds, D. C. On motion of Mr. Weitzel, duly seconded, the fol- lowing by-laws were adopted: 1. The name of the organization shall be Tue AMERICAN Law InstITUTE. 2. The objects of the Institute shall be to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its35 better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work. 2° The members of the Institute shall be (a) Those whose names appear on the roll of the meeting held in Washington, D. C., on February 23d, 1923. at the invitation of the Committee on the Kstab- lishment of a Permanent Organization for the lImprove- ment of the Law, (b) Members of the Council, tc) Any other person elected by the Couneil or by the Institute, (d) During the continuance of their respective offices : (1) The Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Su- preme Court of the United States. (2) The senior judge of each United States Cireuit Court of Appeals. (3) The Attorney General and the Solicitor General of the United States. (4) The Chief Justice of the Court of Ap- peals of the District of Columbia. Cs) The chief justice ot the highest court ot each state. (6) The President of The American Bar As- sociation and the members of its HEx- ecutive Committee. (7) The president of each state bar associa- tion. (8) The dean of each school belonging to the Association of American Law Schools. (9) The President of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. (10) The President of the American Branch of the International Law Association.92 oO 6 (11) The President of the American Judica- ture Society. (12) The President of the National Con- ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. (13) The President of the American Society of International Law. 4. There shall be an annual meeting of members, which shall be called by the Council. Special meetings of members may be called by the Council on three weeks’ notice, and shall be ealled on the written re- quest of fifty members. All meeting's shall be he!d in Washington, D. C., except when the Council specifeally designates another place of meeting. Fifty members shall form a quorum. 0. Lhe affairs of the Institute shall be managed by a Council of twenty-one members. The Council shall have power to make rules not inconsistent with these by-laws, and shall also have power to increase the number of the members of the Council until the next annual meeting of the Institute, provided that the total membership shall at no time exceed thirty-three. The members of the Institute at the organization meet- ing’ shall elect twenty-one persons members of the Council, At the first meeting of the Council the mem- bers shall by lot divide themselves into three classes, seven to serve until December 31st. 1926, seven to serve until December 31st, 1929, and seven to serve until December 31st, 1932. A vacancy not due to the expiration of a term may be filled by the Council until the next annual meetine of the members of the In- stitute, and shall then be filled for the unexpired term by the members of the Institute. 6. The Council may appoint an Executive Com- mittee and may delegate to it such powers as the Coun- cil may deem proper.37 ¢. Any legal work done under the direction of the Institute, before being published as an official publiea- tion of the Institute, shall be approved by a meeting otf members. 8. The officers shall be a president, a vice-presi- dent, a secretary and a treasurer, each havine the powers and duties usually incident to his office. They shall be elected by the Council and shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected. The Council may elect other officers and prescribe their duties. 9. No member of the Council shall while remaining a member receive any compensation from the Institute. 10. These by-laws may be amended by the affirm- ative vote of a majority of members voting on the question at an annual meeting. On motion of Mr. Weitzel, duly seconded, the fol- lowing resolution was adopted: Resolved, That those persons whose names ap- pear on the roll of members of the meeting held today in Washington, D. C., at the invitation of the Committee on the Establishment of a Perma- nent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, are hereby elected to membership in The American Law Institute, the election to take effect upon their respective assents. [The chairman of the meeting held at Washing- ton, D: C., on February 23, 1923, at the invitation of the Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, ap- pointed a Committee on Incorporation, in accordance with a resolution adopted by that meeting. This com- mittee acted as the inecorporators of The American Law Institute and reported to the meeting their ac- tion as set forth in the above minutes of the organiza-TRAD SAE ey SS tion meeting of the members of The American Law Institute. The secretary of both meetings then called the roll of members of the larger meeting and the per- sons named on pages to of these proceedings indicated their desire to become members of the cor- poration. The chairman thereupon declared that the corporation consisted ot the incorporators and of those who had accepted membership viva voce upon the roll eall. The meeting held at the invitation of the Commit- tee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law then resolved itself into a meeting of the members of the corporation. ] On motion of George W. Wickersham, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the chair shall appoint a committee of five to nominate twenty-one persons for election as members of the Council. The chair appointed as members of this commit- tee Henry L. Stimson, of New York; Herbert Harley, of Illinois; Charles M. Hepburn, of Indiana; W. H. H. Piatt, of Missouri, and Julius Henry Cohen, of New York. The Committee on Nominations withdrew and hav- ing returned reported the nomination of the following persons for members of the Council: George K. Alter Andrew J. Montague Benjamin N. Cardozo Victor Morawetz John W. Davis George Welwood Murray Herbert S. Hadley Hmmett N. Parker Wiliam Browne Hale Khhu Root James Parker Hall Arthur Prentice Rugg Learned Hand Cordenio A. Severance Alexander C. King Harlan F.. Stone Wilham Draper Lewis George W. Wickersham Kdward J. MeCutcheon Samuel Williston John G. Milburno9 On motion of Nathan William MacChesney, of Ili- nois, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the nominations shall be ele Sec On motion of Nathan William MacChesney, of Tlli- nois, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the secretary shall be in- structed to east the unanimous ballot of the mem- bers of the Institute present for the election as members of the Council ef the persons nominated by the Committee on Nominations. The secretary reported that he had east the ballot as instructed and that the persons nominated by the Committee on Nominations had been elected members of the Council. On motion of Julius Henry Cohen, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That members of the Council who have not signified acceptance of membership in the Institute by answering ‘‘aye’’ as their names were called shall be deemed elected as members of the Institute, such election to take effect upon acceptance. On motion of Julius Henry Cohen, of New York, duly seconded, it Was Resolved, That the Council shall enroll as original members of the Institute those members who have signed the certificate of incorporation and those who have been elected at this meeting and have accepted election by answering ‘‘aye’’ to the roll call or shall accept election by signify- ine their acceptance to the Couneil.STE aT es TE PS ae eee a 40 On motion of Joseph H. Beale, of Massachusetts, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the members of the Commit- tee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organi- zation for the Improvement of the Law who are not able to be present at this meeting are hereby elected as members of the Institute, the election to take effect upon acceptance. On motion of George W. Wickersham, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the Couneil is directed to eall for further eriticism of the plan outlined in the report of the Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law, to call for suggestions as to the scope of the project and the mode of carrying it out, and to hold hearings if desired by any members of the Institute present at this meeting or here- after becoming’ a member. Nathan William MacChesney, of Illinois, moved the adoption of the following’ resolution: ‘Whereas, it 1s expected that an American Law Institute will be organized here for the pur- pose of legal research, restatement of the law, and improvement of legislation; and ‘Whereas, it is believed that if under the di- rection of a representative organization such as contemplated any considerable funds are to be devoted to legal research, restatement of the law, and improvement of legislation, it is desirable that a portion at least of any funds received be made available for studies in aid of the preparation of legislation; and41 ‘“Whereas, it is clear that the need of law re- form in many subjects will be confined to specific points on which the requisite information should be forthcoming as early as is compatible with thorough ‘investigation and that such reform should not have to await the completion of re- search on other points from which it will derive no benefit; and ‘““‘Whereas, outside of what is generally known as law reform there are many cases in which the correct drafting of statutes will greatly be benefited by a thorough understanding of tech- nical legal principles, and in these eases likewise the resources of an American Law Institute might with great advantage be placed in the serv- ice of legislation; and ‘Whereas, such an Institute of Law should, therefore, keep in close touch with other national bodies having need of scientific legislation, espe- cially the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and recognize it as part of its function to furnish studies which can be used as a basis for legislation of general state interest or national scope or significance ; ‘“Now, therefore, be at resolved that, ‘<1. Tt would be desirable to give expression to this function either in the organic act of the proposed American Law Institute or in some reso- lution accompanying the organization of such In- stitute. ‘9 The Council (or executive committee) of the proposed Institute be directed to consider the advisability of such assistance to and financial support of certain phases of the National Con- ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws42 in particular or other organizations having simi- lar national scope and purpose. ‘<2 The Council (or executive committee) of the proposed Institute be authorized to render such assistance and to devote such part of its funds available to the financial support of sucit work as in its judgment after such consideration it may deem wise.”’ Mr. McChesney’s motion having been duly sec- onded, On motion ot (;eore’e W. Wickersham, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That Mr. McChesney’s motion shall be laid upon the table. The chairman stated that the next order of busi- ness was action upon the resolution offered by Her- bert S. Hadley, of Colorado, at the morning session, reading as follows: Resolved, That the Council or governing body of this organization be requested to give prompt and careful study to the need and practicability of a restatement of the substantive and proce- dural eriminal law, and if found desirable and practicable we recommend that a restatement of the law of crimes and criminal procedure be made one of the first works of this organization. The resolution was discussed by Harlan F’. Stone, of New York: Herbert S. Hadley, of Colorado; Wil- liam I. Schaffer, of Pennsylvania, and Edwin R. IXKeedy, of Pennsylvania. On motion of T. J. O’Donnell, of Colorado, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That speeches on all questions shall be hmited to three minutes.43 The discussion on Mr. Hadley’s resolution was continued by Clarence N. Goodwin, of Lllinois, and Louis B. Ewbank, of Indiana. On motion of Louis B. Ewbank, of Indiana, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That Mr. Hadley’s resolution shall be laid upon the table. The chairman announced that the Council would meet on Saturday, February 24, at 10 o’clock, in the American Red Cross Building. On motion of James Brown Scott, of the District of Columbia, duly seconded, Kathryn L Sellers, Judge of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, was elected a member of the Institute. The topies to be considered by the Institute were discussed by Hollis R. Bailey, of Massachusetts, and William Draper Lewis, of Pennsylvania. The chairman read to the meeting the following letter addressed to him by the Attorney General of the United States: ‘“‘Opricr oF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ‘“WASHINGTON, D. C. ‘“HWebruary 22, 1923. ‘Hon. Klubu Root, ‘‘American Bar Association, ‘‘Washington, D. C. ‘““My dear Mr. Chairman: ‘(When I received your much appreciated in- vitation to attend and participate in the meeting of representative judges, lawyers and law teach- ers to be held in this city tomorrow, I had little warning of an illness which has intervened, and which will make it necessary for me to forego the pleasure and benefit I had anticipated in be-arnt eT 44 ing associated with you, and those co-operating with you, in inaugurating and giving impetus to the patriotic and very laudable endeavor you have undertaken to accomplish. Keenly, therefore, do I regret my inability to be present, because it had been my purpose to express in person my appreciation of the work you and your associates have in hand. Such teachings and reforms as will result from the suecess of your endeavors are as essential now as when this Government was founded. Speedy justice to all alike, laws of uni.- versal application, observance and enforcement, unhampered by those technicalities which result in delaying, and ofttimes in defeating justice, are most essential to the American people at this time, if the regnanecy of law and established order are to be preserved. ‘There must not only be maintained a uni- versal respect for law, but there must be an im- partial enforcement of all laws as against the majority as well as the minority. The rich and the poor, men of high as well as low degree, those who believe in the law as well as those who do not, wherever the jurisdiction of this Government may extend, must be made to yield to the mandates of the law, for obedience to the law is not only the cornerstone of universal liberty, but is the great- est security which the citizen possesses. When law ceases to be regnant civil government fails. ‘Those who temporarily rebel are, in most instances, those who would, in the end, suffer most if universal application and enforcement were swept aside. As I have said on former oeeasions. since I have been Attorney General of the United States, I consider all reputable members of the American bar a part of the De-45 partment of Justice. The help which they have given in sustaining the Government, and especially in upholding the courts, has been most deeply ap- preciated by me. No man ean succeed as Attor- ney General of the United States who has not the confidence, respect and support of both the bench and the bar, and the support and encouragement which I have received from both must always af- ford me the greatest satisfaction I have received as a public servant, in my endeavors, to use the words of the immortal Lincoln: ‘to do the right as God has given me to see the right.’ ‘‘May I say, then, the efforts that are being made to establish an American Law Institute, hav- ing for its primary purpose the clarification and sumplification of the law, demands and should ceive the hearty approval and support of the en- tire legal profession. So intricate have become f he complexities and so great—tte “uncertainties of the law thi at t relief must be obtained from some such source, The decisions that are now being ee produced by forty-e ioht Se parate and dist tinct —a soverelgnties, Su] yplemented by the ever increas- ine volume ree abasic ns that are being’ rendered | by th Fede ral ¢ eourts, es produced a condition ae ne — uncertainty, that, “ahedkeed. must eventually de- stroy, or render impotent, the whole system of ce ae ee American | jurisprudence. It the instruction of —_—_——— a cee annem experie ence that laws to be off ctive must be cer- tain in their meaning, and uniform in their ap- plication. Through unlimited judicial expression exactly the opposite te situation prevails. ep hat a restatement of ‘the entire body of the law involves infinite patience and untold diffieul- ties need not operate as an insuperable barrier in the undertaking proposed by your organization. When it is considered that practically one-half46 the eases decided by courts of last resort are the result of errors growing out of more or less com- plicated systems of procedure, it may readily be seen that a large proportion of your undertaking would be accomplished in the establishment of a eeneral system of uniform procedure applicable alike to all courts, and this result alone, if effec- tuated, would amply justify the formation of such an institution as you propose. ‘Painful as the admission may be, it is none the less true that under existine’ conditions. the law as a seience has lost the element of accuracy, the \ irtue of simplicity and the perfection of rea- son. The tendency of some courts, yearly grow- ing more pronounced, to ignore fundamentals, and to render opinions based on inclination rather than principle, has contributed in no small degree to the present complexities of the situation. With a learned judiciary, relieved of the embarrass- ment of irreconcilable inconsistencies, which a re- statement of the law will effect, a scholarly and scientific administration of justice must be the in- evitable result. ‘Should opportunity afford kindly express my compliments to those present for the courtesy of their invitation, and my deep appreciation for the support which I have been given as Attorney General. I shall at all times render any assist- ance or give any support that lies in my power in promoting the work at hand, and in joing you in a redeclaration of the essentials of the law, and in the perpetuation of constitutional government in this country, wherever the courts may hold American jurisdiction extends. ‘‘Respectfully, ‘CH. M. DaucHeErrty, °" Attor ney Gene) 1) ise47 On motion of George W. Wickersham, of New York, duly seconded, it was Resolved, That the meetine shall adjourn. Whereupon, at 4 P. M., on Friday, February 23, 1925, the meeting adjourned sine die. SHIPPEN LEWIS, oecre Lary.Pe PO SOE EE a Sa ee, SO ee Oe oreatl professi on ol 45 ADDRESS OF ELIHU ROOT IN PRESENTING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE Gentlemen of the Bench and Bar of the United States: It is an inspiring and cheerful spectacle upon which I now gaze, the spectacle of men eminent in the ‘the law who have come from high tion and leadership in practice in the various courts Union, to partici- Sta of our country from all parts of the the improvement of the law. pate in a conference upon the Committee to make [ have been requested by a brief statement in explanation of the proceedings which bring us to the point where we are now. Most of you know that for many years we have been talking ‘1 The American Bar Association and in many State Bar Associations about the increasing complexity and confusion of the substantive law which is applied all our states and in the Federal courts. We have been talkine about it. We have had committees appointed, but nothing has been done, and about a year ago a number of gentlemen interested in the subject began to consult as to whether something could not be done, and how it could be done. It was apparent that the confusion, ‘the uncertainty, was growing worse from year to year. It was apparent that the \ rast multitude ———— of decisions which our practitioners are obliged to con- sult was reaching a magnitude which made it 1mpossi- ble in ordinary practice to consult them. It was ap- pare that whatever authority might be found for Le view Ot th . law upon any topie, other authorities 0 uld ‘be found for a different view upon the same topic. Se ff he . oreatl numbe : of books, the e nor mous amount ( { —— litization, the strugg rles of the court s to avoid too strict an applicati ion of the rule of stare decisis, the fact that the e law had | recome so vast and complicated that the conditions of ordina ry practice and ordinary judicial —_—,,.49 duty made it impossible to make adequate examina- fions—all these had tended to create a situation where the law was becoming ouesswork. as You will find in the paper which has been dis- tributed the statement that a count made in 1917 showed 175,000 pages of reported decisions in the United States, as against 7,000 in Great Britain. Three years before that I had a count made in the Library of Congress, the result of which I have often stated. It showed that during the five years preced- ine 1914 over 62,000 statutes had been passed and in- cluded in the printed volumes of laws in the United States. and that during the same five years over 60,000 decisions of courts of last resort had been delivered and included in the printed volumes of reports. And still it 20es On. It was evident that the time would presently come, unless something were done, when courts would be foreed practically to decide cases not upon authority but upon the impression of the moment, and that we should ultimately come to the law of the Turkish Kadi, where a good man decides under good impulses and a bad man decides under bad impulses, as the case may be: and that our law, as a system, would have sunk below the horizon, and the basis of our institutions would have disappeared. The result of the conference was, first, to consider tives of the bar from all over the country, and then an attempt to secure a great meeting of representa- the suggestion was made that the meeting would have nothing to do of practical effect, because they would have nothing to work on, and that they would be driven to appoint a committee to study the subject and to report upon It ata further meeting. It was also sug oested that for such a purpose, merely to come to oether and appoint a committee. it would be impossible1 SPO 50 to secure attendance from all parts of the country of the men who ought to be in such a meeting; and aeccord- ‘nelv it was determined to constitute such a committee as everybody knew such a meeting would constitute, and to let them make a thorough, exhaustive study of this problem—How can the work of restating the substantive law, in clear and simple terms and in au- thentic form, be performed? \ecordingly, such a committee was got together. They secured funds, they employed competent and ex- perienced assistants, and for nearly a year the work has been conducted, and the result of the work is this report which we make to this meeting as if we had been appointed by you to make this study and report, asking you to receive it and to consider it and act upon it. Copies of the report have been circulated, sent, I think, to each one of you in sufficient time for you to have an opportunity to read it, and I assume it will not be necessary to spend the day 1] re-reading it here. ‘The idea of the report is that if we ean vet a State nent of the law so well done as to be gvenerally acceptable and made the basis for judicial considera- 10) we wil] have accomplished at the outset a very oTeal idvanece, . We reeall the part play ed in judicial decisions by what Judge story sald, not only in his decisions, but In his textbooks and in his writings; the part played in judicial decision by what Chancellor Kent said in his great work, ‘To take recent instances, take the work on equity written by John Norton Pomeroy. I have not followed the reports closely enough to know whether it still continues, but for a 200d many years alter the publication of that work the courts quoted what he said with practically the effect with which thev would have quoted a ereat Judicial decision, ,ol There is a work now which is playing the same part, Mr. Williston’s work on contracts, which is being quot d in the same way. Now, if you can have the law systematically, scien- tifically stated, the principles stated by competent men, giving their discussions of the theories upon which ——_—_—— — : ——_—_— — — their statements are based, giving a presentation and discussion of all the Judicial decisions upon which their statements are based, and if such a statement Call be revised and eriticised and tested by a compe- tent group of lawyers of eminence, and where the ss — work is done if their conclusions can be submitted to ns See — ee 7 = — the bar that we have here, if that ean be done when the work is completed, we will have a statement of the common law of America which will be the prima facie basis on which judicial action will rest; and any lawyer, whose interest in litigation requires him to say that a different view of the law shall be taken. will have upon his shoulders the burden to overturn the state ment. Instead of going back through ten thousand eases i will be not a con elusive presumption but a practical prima ae L¢ State it will have been done for him: 1 nNere ment upon which, unless it is overturned, judement may rest. If such a thing is done it will tend to assert itself and to confirm itself and_to gatl eee! ather authorit y as time goes on. Of course it cannot be final, for times art continually changing and new conditions arise, and there will have to be revision after revision: but we will have dealt with the past and will have gotten this old man of the sea off our shoulders in a great measure, It is a great work. It is a work before which any- one might well become discouraged. Unless the work ean be done greatly it is worthless. It_is of no useSU ee Ne SS to produce another digest, another cyclopedia. That kind of work is being done admirably. It is no use to , duplicate the work of the West Publishing Company, which has done so well. It must be so done as to ‘| earry authority, as to carry conviction of impartial judgment upon the most thorough scientific investiga- tion and tested accuracy of statement. Can it be done? If it cannot, why we must go on through this swamp of decisions with consequences which we cannot but dread. The great work of the Roman law had imperial power behind it; Theodosius and Justinian could command and all the resources of a great empire responded. In the simpler and nar- rower work of the Code Napoleon, again, imperial will put motive power behind the enterprise. What have we? No legislature, no Congress can command: no individual ean do the work. Men who come and 20, who spend a little time from their ordinary occupa- tions, and go, cannot accomplish it. Means must be raised for an adequate force. for continuous application. Participation in the enter- prise must be deemed highly honorable. Selection tor participation must be deemed to confer distinction, it must be recognized as a great and imperative publie service. How Cal) it be done? l{ ean be done only if the public opinion of the American democracy recog- nizes the need of the service, and that public opinion you here today represent and can awaken and direct. hat is why the Committee solicited your attend- ance here, to ask you whether you will put all that vou represent behind the undertaking, so that the Ameri- ‘an democracy may be behind it. You will perceive that it is a sunple task in state- ment, that it stands by itself, and that the organiza- tion required is an oreanization specifically adapted to Is particular work, 11Jo | have received a number of letters from friends in various parts of the country suggesting that certain other things ought to be done, especially that there should be a reform of the administration of the law, that there should be a reform of the eriminal law. To that I agree, we all must agree. But that is another story. The American Judicature Society, a most ex- cellent institution, 1S addressing itself to the subject of of _administrat tion. There is a most excellent society In connection \ ith the er iminal law, which is dealing with criminal law. The trouble with the eriminal law is chiefly a trouble of administration. In both branches ft the law, civil and criminal, there are these existing organizations, which it is not desirable to dupleate or to substitute ourselves for; but further than that, tO deal with defects ot administration, great t defects, Tre- quires an organization es especially aday ted to that pur- pose, and quite a different organization from one which would be available and eff {fective for this purpose of the scientific study and_restatement of the substantive a Defects in administration have been receiving th attention of The American Bar Association most of our State Bar Associations for many vears. The trouble with reforming them comes w] e and of len you run against the legislative bodies that have the power to pass the laws necessary to reform them. In my own state most thorough and excellent work has been done on the subject, and when it runs up against the legisla- ture there is always some little thing that the reform hitches on and fails to mak » progress, and the ture adjourns without action: and that eves after year. legisla- On year [ busied myself for years in the Senate of the United States in trying to get through reforms in procedure that had been discussed and recommended -No4 By Bt Aa aul aha ‘n bv The American Bar Association. ld get a favorable report from the ; , ~ ee: but always there was some Hit : le dimeu prey nted their being enacted into ble is plain that t he motive power hind demand for reform is not strong enough. You get the real moti power of a people that de- mand reform behind th » demand and no little hiteh will occur in the legislatu either of the state or of the nation. But while we are all for reform, we are mildly for reform; we don’t put any beef behind it, we don’t put any power behind it. Nobody 1s in danger of be- ine’ run over by it if he gets in the way. That is the trouble with the demands tor reform ot judicial pro- cedure, elv1l and eriminal, because almost anyone in ate Legislature or the national Coneress Can stand in the way and stop it without danger of con- pegquelces LO himselt. Perhaps we can help. The eatherine of the dis- tinguished leaders of « pinion of America here in this hall today will help; the making of a permanent or- eanization to accomplish this restatement of the law, with the earnest and real interest in the subject on the part of real men, will help; and as time goes on le organization which you have made may accomplish such relations with other organizations and such ad- ditional duties, ; nd avail itself of such opportunities, as to aid all alone the line in the reform of law and the reform of procedure. But al present it seems plain that the thine to do is to form an organization adapted to this specifie thing. Institutions which try to do everything do nothing. This oreat, difficult task will be load enough for us to carry if we can earry it. Gentlemen, many competent observers, many thoughtful students of history, are beginning to fearJd that the competency of mankind to govern is not keep- ing pace in its development with the ever-increasing complexity of life in this new era of universal inter- dependence. | have faith that our people will prove themselves equal to the ever-growing, ever-inereasine demands upon them, of life, of these strange new years. I have faith; but they cannot do i by lying down. No free people, ho cde moecracy —and | include in this the Amer- ican democracy—can maintain its institutions, its freedom, its justice, its opportunity for the future, un- less there be general, practically universal effort, will- Ineness to serve, desire for knowledge, determination to grapple with and deal with the difficult problems that confront humanity. We may not succeed; but we ean ury. Here is one thine we can try. It is something the need of which is universally recognized. It is something the respon sibility for which rests especially upon us. l{ points the pathway where we will be acknowledged the natu- ral leaders of the democracy in its struggles towards better life, towards permanency of institutions. If we fail, who shall sueceed? And if none succeed what becomes of the law which we are, each one of us, from day to day, appealing to, and demanding the applica- tion of, in the interests of our clients? What becomes of the great system of American law to which we have undertaken to devote our lives?56 TEXT OF THE DEBATES. [The parts of the debates dealing with the organization of the ind of the corporation have not been printed. | meeting < W. H. Wasuineron (Tennessee): Mr. Chairman, while I am not a member of the Committee, | am here as a delegate to this great Convention. I believe that a few remarks touching the general purpose of this notable assembly: would not be out of place. We all realize that something is needed in the United States to clarify and establish the principles of law in America. With forty-eight states, with the United States courts and the Supreme Court of the United States constantly publishing reports to the world, the sources of American law have become so much at variance and complicated as to positively ap- pal visiting statesmen from other countries. [| regard this as one of the most notable conven- tions ever assembled in America. The Chairman has well said that it is not too much to believe that it rep- resents the public opinion of the United States. We are not in the epoch of the Roman Empire when the law was declared there by imperial authorities, nor in France when the law was declared there by the Code Napoleon, but in looking back over the vista of years for some point to rest the eye upon, we inevitably come to the great pioneers of the common law of Eng- land and to the pioneers of American law. These men blazed the way into a forest. The American lawyer today looks out upon a wilderness upon which to gain knowledge of the law. The need of the hour is some declaration of fundamental principles. Thirty-one years ago The American Bar Associa- tion foresaw what we are now confronted with and or- oanized a Commission on Uniform State Laws for the purpose ot 1n\ iting each state upon eertain oreat sub-vi jects wherein the law should be uniform to adopt cer- tain statutes, but at last we are confronted with a multiplicity of judicial construction of those laws. As an instance take the Negotiable Instrument Law, adopted in 1899, enacted in every state in the Union save one, and in all of the possessions of the United States. We are confronted today with different con- structions of several of the provisions of that great law, but in such an Institute as this it is hoped the construction will be uniform. Emanating from this ereat body we may rest the prediction that their rec- ommendations will invite and command the approval of the bar and people of America, But the point which at once challenges our ad- miration and approval is the invitation to each Su- preme Court of the states and of the Union to look to the declarations which are to emanate from this ereat body as the great commanding statements of the law: and to that end it is not too much to believe that we may in some measure approach the aim of The American Bar Association thirty-one years ago to make uniform our judicial construction of statutes, Jutius Henry Cowen (New York): Mr. Presi- dent. I understood the Chair invited questions. I should like to ask a question. I assume that the very carefully prepared report of the Committee has al- ready convinced us of the desirability of the objects and purposes of such an organization as this, and so far as the mechanies of perfecting the organization are concerned. under the delightful and charming leadership of the men who have taken charge we shall accomplish that before we leave. But I think that possibly the Committee can get something more than the mere formation of an organization here. This is a great opportunity for constructive criticism. There can be no criticism of anything that has been said by the Chairman in his opening address. ‘TheD8 response to that has already been made, Sir, in the hearts of the people here, and if I may be permitted for a moment to say so in your presenc, you have added one more piece of public service to a long rec- ord of service at the Bar. But I think that we are all questioning in our own minds, not with lack of confidence in the ultimate accomplishment of the ob- ject, but questioning in our own minds how this thing’ is to be done, how you. are eoimne about it. [ say, there is no question probably in the hearts or minds of any of the men here as to the desirability of the object, and that we will have no difficulty in forming this organization here today before we leave, but that the opportunity for constructive criticism from so many members of the Bar and the Bench should not be lost, and the Chair’s invitation to ask questions should be accepted, and in that spirit | ask the question, Mr. Chairman, as to how this thing is to be done. I think it will be helpful to us to have some member of the Committee explain the mechanics ot operating the enterprise, and then we will be in a position to offer suggestions helpful in their nature to effectuate the result. Of course, we know it will have to be worked out under the supervision of a committee. There is a suggestion in the report that the subjects be taken up in a certain order, the subject of corporations first. | have heard some questions as to whether it is wise to proceed with that subject first. It may be said that this is a mere matter of detail which ean be best disposed of by the Committee after its organization, but | do not think this opportunity should be lost OL getting reactions from the meeting, and I ask. Mtr. Chairman, if some member of the Committee who has eiven attention to the problem of the method of or- ganizing the work will be good enough briefly to ex- plain to us what the plan is. 559 Witu1aAM Draper Lewis (Pennsylvania): I think I can answer the gentleman’s question by pointing out what the Committee believe are the four necessary steps to produce something that the Institute, if it is formed, can put forth as its official publication. The first step is to select a topie or topies of the law. In the report we have suggested that it would be wise to select at least three topies, but probably not more than three topies at the start. One of the thines that the Committee wished from this meeting was suggestions as to what those topies should be. If you will read the report you will notice that the Committee does not commit itself as to the three topies suggested in the report. All that is said is that the reporters—and by that is meant the four or five persons who were selected by the Committee to write the initial draft of this report, to make the initial in- vestigation—recommended to the Committee the sub- jects of conflict of laws, of corporations, of torts, per- haps beginning in torts on the subject of negligence. There exists among the members of the Committee a difference of opinion as to whether those three sub- jects are the three subjects which should be selected, and I think the Committee is unanimous in its feeling that what we want is more light before that selection is made, because in the first part of this work which we are undertaking we will necessarily make some mistakes, but it is important that we make as few mis- takes as possible. Therefore, the first step is to se- lect the subjects, and we should be disappointed if this great gathering should break up without some expression of opinion as to other subjects than the subjects which are mentioned in the report. Having selected a topic the next business of the Committee as we conceive the way in which the work should go forward, is to select what we may call a reporter, some one person who is responsible for get-© ee SY cane 42) Tee 60 ting before a group of experts on that subject an ini- tial statement of the topic, in which at least parts of the topic are produced. Such a reporter will have to be an eminent person who is thoroughly familiar with that topic. He must stand out to the country as gen- erally recognized among the members of the legal pro- fession as having a protound knowledge of that sub- ject, and he must devote his time, for the time being, to that work, and he must be given the necessary as- sistants. No legal work can be done properly without a thorough examination of the existing authorities. Therefore that man must have, in view of the vast number of authorities, efficient assistants. Different men are differently constituted. Some men can work best when they have very little assistance. Others are accustomed to work, as Many ot you here are accus- tomed to operating your law offices, with a large num- ber of assistants; and therefore, whether the Coin- mittee should give to this reporter a number of able men who would be assisting him, and the character of those men, will largely depend upon the individual characteristics of the particular reporter selected. The third step is the selection, at the same time that a reporter is selected, of a eroup of experts in that subject. Those experts should also be persons who have a profound knowledge of the particular topic. They should also give a portion at least of their time systematically and regularly. They should be compensated. There should be a professional obli- gation, for compensation given, to render systematic and regular attendance at the meetings of the Com- mittee and to work in the time between the meetings of the Committee. Those of us who have had expe- rience with the Conference on Uniform State Laws know that one of the difficulties of the Conference is that no one is compensated, except perhaps the actual person called draftsman who is selected. Therefore,6] too much is left perhaps to the draftsman by the Com- mittee of Experts of the Conference. That is an in- evitable result, not the fault of the (¢ ontference, but the inevitable result of having a group of experts that are not compensated for their work. That is the third step. Now, we will imagine that the reporter has pre- sented a preliminary draft, that the Committee of Hx- perts has examined that dri aft, has criticised it, and oo it is in shap ye t to be put out as a tentative draft and distributed _ among the members of the Insti titute and among the men mbe rs of f the profession gener ‘ally; that it then comes back with criticism { o the expert com- mittee; th at the ¢ committee return it to the re ‘porter, and and that id that that L process 2 20es On, the process of et ttine out a tentative draft, o havin ig it widely ciseussed and criticised ; and that. fiat the Committe: Ex- perts have got to the point where they are ee to stand by that restatement of the law in the gen eral form—I s shall not go into that at_this time—in the general form as stated in this report. ee Then comes the last step. | do not think anyone who has had any experience in getting out an impor- tant piece of legal work wants to have the whole work done by experts on that particular topic of the law. I am quite sure the members of the Committee do not. We believe that the last step is taking this work which has been done by the experts on that topic and _put- ting it before a_larger body, such as the members en this Insti tute that we are talking about, and letting them go over it time and time again. When a ante of experts in the Conference on Uniform State Laws have finished some one act and have brought it be- fore the full body of the Commission, they get a re- action, they get ‘dead that come not from the expert in that topic but from an intelligent, legally trained audience. That fourth step this so-called restatement62 of the law has to come through. When yaw, are through with that, then you are in a position to de- termine whether the thing that has been produced should be put OUT as A publication ot the Institute. ~ 1 think, Mr. Chairman, | have answered the gen- nuestion, as L understood it, by stating the tleman’s q four processes through which we should go. Harry 8. Knicur (Pennsylvania), Mr. Chairman, mav I ask Mr. Lewis to explain one thing’? You have started. as I understand it, with the running of the hinery ot the house atter it has been constructed. mac [ would like to know just on- what basis—imagine yourself for a minute the architect putting out the specifications—the house is to be constructed. In other words, if you had it within your power at this minute to have this Convention or Committee do what you and the Committee would like to have it do in order to form a perfect organization and build up the foundation and get the machinery in the building and th ) work on [G: what would be the modus operandi? What is your thought, and then we will have some- = ) thine in the way of machinery to work upon? Witttam Draper Lewis (Pennsylvania): I should like to answer that question in this way. We have here two thing's to do. We have one thing, to deter- mine whether we are going to form an Institute, and l am going to assume that we are going to. The Com- mittee have then a form of organization to propose, and they have a plan of putting that organization into being when its by-laws as proposed, or as amended by this meeting, are adopted. But may I say to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania who has arisen, that we are very anxious, the members of the Committee, not to gel involved in machinery before we get ideas.63 After all, the machinery of this Institute is going to be very simple, and I can assure the gentleman that barring one or two points on the by-laws, about which the Committee are anxious to have the special opinion of the meeting, that the organization itself is almost inevitable in its general characteristics, Let us, if we may, devote the first part of this meeting at any rate to giving to the Committee help on the points which they feel those who are going to be in the position of doing this work need—namely, First, what are the topics that should be selected? Sec- ond, are the ways in which I have indicated that the Committee think the various steps should be taken the ) way this work should be done? Again, another ques- tion on which we are anxious to have expressions of opinion, is the form of the restating. We have de- voted a great deal of time in the Committee to the ex- act form in which this restatement should be gotten out, and we are anxious to get reactions on that, either through expressions of opinion or intelligent ques- tions where the subject is not clear; and therefore trankly I ask the gentleman that he will not introduce machinery until we get some reaction on these other and vitally important questions. Herspert §. Haptey (Colorado): Mr. Chairman, and fellow-members of the bar: As bearing upon the question which Mr. Lewis has suggested, upon which the discussion and opinion of this meeting are de sired, namely, what subjects of the law shall be given early consideration by this Association, which of course in the minds of many will determine the advis- ability and practicability of this organization, I wish to offer this resolution, and as it is in the joint hand- writing of Dean Stone and myself, I think I can do a better job of reading it than the Secretary:64 ‘Resolved, That the Council or coverning hodv of this organization be requested to give prompt and careful study to the need and practi- cability of a restatement of the substantive and procedural criminal law, and if found desirable and practicable, we recommend that a restatement of the law of crimes and criminal procedure be made one of the first works of this organization.’’ In support of that resolution, and im reference to this subject which has been stated, and which has been considered by this organization, I wish to offer these suggestions. As Mr. Root has ably and clearly pointed out, the work of the restatement and the clarification and the simplification of our law is a work that the Amert- can public have a right to demand of the profession as a whole and is separate and distinct from the duty that the lawyer owes to the court, or that the citizen owes to his country. This being a professinal duty, we must, as the report states, consider such questions as are most immediately and pressingly necessary for the welfare of our system of jurisprudence. I think it is entirely clear that when anything goes wrong with the courts, when there are defects manifested in the administration of justice, the American people look to the legal profession to devise a method of cor- rection and to have thine go in the right way. It was some ten or twelve years ago that no less a personage in influence in public affairs and in the legal profession in this country than Chief Justice Taft stated that the administration of the eriminal law in the United States, with the exception of a few states, was a disgrace to our eivilization, and that unless a better enforcement of the criminal law was accomplished, there must be a continued increase in major crimes. The statement made by Chief Justice65 Taft over ten years ago has had a forceful and re- erettable fulfillment. In the last ten years there has been an increase in this country of over one thousand per cent. in the number of burglaries. Criminal prose- cutions pending in the United States Courts in 1912 amounted to 9500, while in 1921 they had increased to 70,000, and yet only one-fourth of that inerease was to be attributed to the Volstead Act. The yearly toll of lives by reason of criminal homicides in the United States numbers 9000 and the percentage of convic- tions is less than ten, while in the other great Enelish speaking nations of Great Britain and Canada the homicides are from one-fifth to one-tenth of what they are in this country, and yet the convictions there are practically fifty per cent., while in this country they are only ten per cent. of the homicides committed. These figures are the common knowledge not only of the members of the bar, but of the American people, and we cannot pick up a magazine or a news- paper but what there is not only an appeal but a demand on the legal profession that they bring about a correction of a condition which is not only a chal- lenge to our profession, a challenge to our courts, but a challenge to the civilization of which we are a part. No country can view with complacency a continued in- crease in the rate of crimes out of all proportion to the increase in population. Now, the question comes as a practical one, What is the duty of this organization to this question, and what are the lines of distinction or what are the limits beyond which we cannot and should not go? At the June meeting of this organization in Bos- ton the question was discussed, and thinking that per- haps the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology was doing this work, and to avoid that duplication which Mr. Root has stated should be avoided, the question was laid over for further con-sideration. 66 At the New York meeting, at which this report was adopted for the consideration of this body, ‘+ was made evident that the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology was not prepared to undertake this work, and that it desired that this new organization should undertake the work of restatement or the law “or Ut crimes and criminal procedure. But the point was raised that what was wrong In this eountrv in the enforcement of the criminal law related more to matters ot administration ( yr legislative re- form than to any doubt and confusion and uncertainty and complexity in the eriminal law itself, and so the question was again postponed to this meeting in order that and discussion selected by this Or Was \\ hich there eould he her immediately ) oanlZi a full consideration of the subject and then that f he council to be ition eould proceed LO clo that and practically helptul and necessary in the enforcement of the eriminal law. Hor my made ot owl + atistaction | had an investig'ation the results of criminal prosecutions in ten of the typical American states, and the results to my mind show that doubt and uncertainty, confusion and complexity S] rone'ly entorecement ot which contributing’ tne this CaUuseS make to the riminal law. situation of- the effective One lack ot The states that were examined were the States of Alabama, Colorado, Mas- sachusetts, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Georgia, Mis- sourl, from Vears In those California 1912 amination of 1426 cases. The percenta a LO nd 1916, inclusive, Pennsylvania, embracing the neluding the ex- oO" aA ot reversals — states ran from sixteen per cent. in the State of Massachusetts to forty-five per cent. in the State of Michigan. The average percentage oft reversals for the ten states selected was practically thirty-three per cent. of the eriminal convictions. + . ° ° ® . a In every criminal case tried in these ten typical Ameri- In_ other words,67 can states, the trial judge was wrong in one Case S out of every three in which there was a_ conviction after a long and arduous trial. ~ This has seemed to me to present a demonstration of the fact that there must exist a need of a restate- ment of the law of crimes and the law of criminal procedure. As Mr. Root has well said, we have nothing to do with the question of administration, we have nothing to do with parole laws, we have nothing to do with state reformatories, we have nothing to do with what is known as reform in the ordinary and accepted mean- ino of the term: but we have a great deal to do with the proposition that the criminal laws of this country, including’ the substantive law and the laws of criminal procedure should be so clear and definite and certain that this difference of opinion that now exists between the trial and the appellate courts should be reduced to an irreducible minimum. This is not the only cause, of CGOUISE. There is the cause of the inexperienced prosecutor; there is the cause of the inefficient police department; there is the cause of the hypercritical appellate court; but over and above all that is the question as to whether our system of criminal jurisprudence is as certain, as definite and as exact as it should be, and in my mind we should fail to ‘respond to that leadership which is now demanded of our profession by the Amer- ican people, we should disappoint the hopes and ex- pectations of the entire public, 1f we should’ not un- dertake to deal with a situation which in my opinion challenges the existence: of our civilization itself. CLARENCE N. GoopwIN (Illinois): Gentlemen ol, shall I say the Institute? We are almost. an Institute. | have read this report.as you all did, I am sure, with ereat care and with great interest. I found myself68 in accord with practically all of it. I found something to suggest by way of eriticism, and I did suggest it. I submitted it to Mr. Wiliam D. Lewis and to your Chairman and to the Chief Justice, and the matters were brought before the Committee and considered, and at a later hour they will be submitted to you in the form of amendments to the by-laws as presented, one of which will be recommended by the Committee, as I understand it, and two others will be submitted for the consideration of the house. That would be the proper time to debate the suggestions. But when we arrive at that point I assume that we are apt to be hurried and it will probably be late in the afternoon when these resolutions are submitted, and as they suggest a departure in a way from the fundamental construction of the Institute itself, I think that I should suggest them to you now so that you may consider them and perhaps we will not have to debate them at all. 1s American Law In- hat be just as permanent as the Govern- CoO The first thing is stitute is going ment itself. Your Chairman knows and most all of you are familiar with the fact that there are institu- tions of a similar character in the United States that antedate the Constitution and that antedate the Deec- laration of Independence. There is, for example, the New York Chamber of Commerce, that antedates the Declaration of Independence. It is true that the New York Chamber of Commerce admits no lawyer to its membership, and that may be accountable for its survival, but I have hope and confidence that this in- stitution will be quite as permanent as any voluntary institution that has yet been created, and as there can only be one Law Institute it should be representative as Tar as possible of all of the principal legal oreaniza- tions of the country, the American bar, the state bars,69 the learned societies, and the law schools and the courts, and a suggestion along that line I believe will be submitted and recommended by the Committee it- self. The next objection I have to make is this, that the provision for the council, as embodied on pages 40 and 41, places in the hands of the council the power to elect their suecessors eternally, the power to con- trol the affairs of the Institute eternally, and I think, to find a precedent for such a provision, you would have to go back of the Constitution and back of the Declaration of Independence, and ego back of the Magna Charta, and probably go back of the time of Tut-enkh-amen, whose remains are now being taken out of the tomb where he has rested for some thirty- four hundred years. And so I have suggested, and I think the recommendation will be submitted to this body, that instead of putting the power of the Institute permanently in the hands of the council, a third of the council should come up for re-election every three years for terms of nine years, and that we have reg- ular, at least triennial, meetings of this Institute. If it is worth while for us to come together here today and consider these matters, it is worth while to come here three years from now and consider the progress that has been made, and where you have authority and responsibility you have interest, and where you have interest you are helpful. And so I think that it will be not only desirable from the point of view of the public, but desirable from the point of view of the work actually done, that we have these meetings, and that we select our responsible representatives of the council. There is not a question in the world but what these members of the council will be elected and re-elected as long as they are active and useful.eel ee ae erne T e eR A Kate k eA yal ae Sources 70 One of our greatest difficulties in the law is the fact that we have forty-nine different independent of final authority, and when you have forty- nine different sources of that kind the manner of variations and the amount of uncertainty of the law is inealeulable. On the other side of the water they have the Judi- cial Committee of the Privy Council. If it were not for that Judicial Committee of the Privy Council there would be twenty or thirty different independent sources of authority in the British Empire and the eondition of the substantive law of the British Empire would be in exactly the same situation as our own. [ had the pleasure, at the invitation of Lord Moul- ton, ten years ago, of sitting in the room of the Judi- cial Committee and listening to an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, a court that is ealled Su- preme and is supreme except that it is subject to re- view by the Judicial Committee. At the same time there were appeals from a dozen or more—l was go- ine to say a dozen or more, at least a number of them—different sourees of supreme authority, one from India and one from New Zealand and others from other colonies; and the result was that instead of having a constant divergence of the law, they, im this way; converged all these different streams of au- thority and wrought them together in one erystallized system of law. My suggestion is that this council shall provide for a judicial council or committee, in the hope that that council or committee will see what means it. can devise for bringing these diverging lines of authority into one pellucid stream, There cannot be any regu- lar constitutional. way of. doing it, but if you can organize the representatives of the different forty- nine Sourees of authority in this country, organize1 them into a committee or a council, and get them to meet from time to time, there will start to be, at least. some tendency towards a convergence and some means suggested for the unifying of the law. And so [ have taken the liberty of drafting an amendment to the by-laws with that end in view. My suggestion, in the main, is this: The Amer- ican Law Institute should be a permanent American institution uniting in itself the representatives of the eourts, the representatives of the bar organizations, and the representatives of the law schools. and it should have power from time to time to seleet the members of its own governing body. Homer Ausers (Massachusetts): May I ask some member of the Committee the practical question of how they propose to finanee this great enterprise? Lt has seemed to a number of us who have gathered around in this neighborhood that this Committee would not have proposed this vast scheme, necessa- rily involving a large expenditure, without some plan of raising the money, other than from many of those who are here present—many of whom are only educa- tors, and others justices of our highest courts, both classes of which are notoriously underpaid. Wittiam [L. Scuarrer (Pennsylvania): I do not know whether we are now discussing the resolution of- fered by Governor Hadley or not. If we are | want to readjust my position to it. It is not my understand- ing’ that we came here tor the purpose of reforming criminal procedure; nor do I think the statistics which Governor Hadley has put. before us are illuminating statistics. I doubt very much whether it can be said that, at least in the courts of appeal of the country, the administration of criminal law has broken down. | think the number of reversed cases by the eriminalOT op oe Soe (Z courts is a surprisingly smal] proportion of the great volume of eriminal business that goes on. Referring to the percentages given, I have been : J ee in the court Of final appeal in the second largest state in the country, and so far as that state is concerned that percentage of reversals means nothing. It means one-third of the cases that have been appealed. That is so small a fraction of the number of cases that O] ave been tried that it is almost infinitesimal—that -third of the number of cases appealed have been Le reversed. ~ Ag I understood the object of this movement it was that we might create an authoritative body which would pronounce their best judgment as to what the established common law of the country is, so that we men sitting in final appeal and you men sitting in full practice might turn to something that was authorita- tive and conelusive. In the state which I come from, which is a strictly common law state, all the criminal law is codified. We practice, so far as the criminal side of our courts is coneerned, by a eode, both of substantive law and a code of criminal procedure, and it seems to me, aeceptinge the broadest aspect of the criminal law, nothing in this would nullify the situa- tion so far as the criminal statutes are concerned. Furthermore, I think there would be a legislative resentment of the invasion of that field of the Jaw. But no man who sits in a court of ultimate appeal, and no man who actually practices law—and I came to my court of highest appeal in the state from the bar— no man can today feel that there is any greater call, both to the busy lawyer and to the busy judge, than that call which will give us something, as the Chair- man said, that we can turn to as the prima facie evi- dence of what the common law is. Therefore, it seems to me that if we go on into Cc7) ) the realm of criminal procedure this gathering today will have missed the thine that it is ealled upon to eonsider and to act about. THE CuHarrman: The gentlemen who are keeping’ the record of this proceeding have difficulty in getting the names of the speakers. If the gentlemen who ad- dress the meeting will state in a loud, clear voice, suit- able to reach posterity, their names and states, the stenographers will be under obligation to them, Roserr L. Tutus (Louisiana): I submit both the oral and the written evidence. I feel that if it should take this still, small voice as long to reach posterity as it did the ear of the Chairman, posterity would find us here. Louisiana, you know, is sometimes looked upon as a Cinderella among the sisterhood. She sits among, I won’t say the ashes, let me say at least the embers, the live embers of the system to which your distin- euished Chairman has referred. But, gentlemen, she has in common with the common law jurisdictions pre- cisely the same problems as they with respect to the administration of the eriminal law. By a statute of 1805, now embodied in the re- vised statutes of Louisiana, the territory from which our state was carved adopted the definitions and the procedure of the English common law, and therefore it is as a blood brother, so to speak, that I address you on that subject. It is my belief that the dynamic force of public opinion which your Chairman has said, and which the report of the Committee has said, should he behind this movement, cannot be better invoked than by the expression of our determination to reform at least criminal procedure. I do not feel so sure of the urgent necessity of the restatement of the substantiveee nee eke ee a Sabg SY ai (4 law of crimes, although I am ready to accede to Gov- ernor Hadley’s motion in that regard. As to the necessity for the restatement and for the restatement with a view to the improvement of the law of eriminal procedure, it seems to me that anyone that states the affirmative states a self-evident truth, [ take it that the matter may not be briefly dis- posed of by the argument of the distinguished gentle- man who has preceded me, in defending the proced- ure of the courts of last resort with respect to eriminal procedure. That, it seems to me, touches only a par of the subject. Let us leave oeneralities for a moment.:and let me cite to you two instances from my own state, within m5 recent recollection, one but the day before yesterday. A woman killed a man. She 1 was indicted, she was convicted, and it was discov- ered that the indictment did not contain the word felonously. JosEPH’ WuHetEss (New York): Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. My point is that the gentle- man is not in order, that the scope and purpose ot this gathering is the proposed organization of an 1n- stitution that has for its object the restatement of the common law, as embodied in’ the resolution offered by Governor Hadley. The remarks of the gentleman are not alone the line of the purpose of this meeting’, which is simply a restatement of the common law. Cherefore, I make the point that he is not in order. Mr. Roor: The Chair iS ot the opinion that the nature of this discussion is such that it does not af- tord any rule of relevancy upon which the gventleman trom Louisiana ean be excluded from continuing’ his remarks. You will perceive that we have no resolu-tion before this body, that the report was laid before the body and declared to be Open to discussion. Any- thing which is relevant to the report, or any part of it, would appear to be in order. Presently I will ask the body 8 they are not ready LO proceed to some further definition of the matter which is before them, but in the meantime Mr. Tullis is in order. Mr. Tuniis (continuing): Taking up the thread of the discourse, I will cite but one other instanee. A man was indicted for arson, arraigned and pleaded not guilty. With leave of court he withdrew his plea of not guilty and made a motion to quash the indict- ment. The motion was denied. The District Attorney forgot to have him rearraigned. He sat, listened to the evidence against him, and his counsel adduced evidenee in his Lavor. He was convicted. A motion in arrest of judgment was: sustained because of the lack of rearraignment. You may say—if there is a gentleman here from the Supreme Court of Wiscon- sin—‘‘ We do things better there.”? I admit it. Wis- consin has held differently. Our courts, however, are committed to the opposing doctrine, ‘The rearraign- ment was essential. The party charged with arson has not yet had his second trial. | believe it is unnecessary before such an audience as this to multiply illustrations of that kind. It surely ought to be unnecessary to supplement what the Chief Justice of the United States has said—I believe | quote him accurately—when he said that the admin- istration of the criminal law in this country is a dis- grace to civilization. It strikes me, gentlemen, that if that expression of the Chief Justice may be quoted and we shall then adjourn from this meeting and let it out to the puble that we have done nothing toward an attempt Orr 5U76 to rectify that condition of affairs, that we may largely fail in invoking the support of that lay public opin- ‘on which will be necessary, I believe, in the last re- sort for us to accomplish any of the reforms at which we alm. | had been under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that there was a resolution of Governor Hadley be- fore the body. I thought that I seconded it and that therefore it was open to discussion under parliament- ary rules. Tue CHarrman: I don’t think any resolution is yet before the meeting. Mr. Tutus: That is all I have to say, then. Juuivus Henry Conen (New York): I have suc ceeded in accomplishing what I set out by my sugges- tion betore, but it seems to me we Gan accomplish something more. The suggestion of Governor Hadley is intended to meet an urgent public demand. But we are a group ot practical men. We enjoy 200d speeches, but when we have a 0b to do we try to do it as oood mechanics. Now, the Committee has challenged us as practical men to make suggestions and criticisms. [t seems to me—and the ideas | am about to express are not my own, but the ideas of a distinguished law- yer, who ought to have risen to his feet and made them himself, but declined on account of his modesty— it seems to me they should be presented. I shall not mention his name without his permission. He made some very excellent criticisms on the train coming down here. One of his suggestions was that a piece of work of this sort could not be done except by a set of men who are continuously employed, carefully selected, be- cause of their qualifications and because of the econfi- dence that the Bench and Bar had in them.The other suggestion. that he made was that in declaring the subject of corporations as one of the first we were falling into error because, like the erim- inal law, the matter of corporations is largely a mat- ter of statutory law. The textbooks on the subject deal with the statutes and require constant revision because of changes in the statute law. and. we are o0- ing into the most complicated subject in: the law at the outset when we go into that subject. I think that practical men would say of the man- agement of this organization, since your success in the future is going to depend upon the success of the first thing you undertake, that you should look over tl field and see what subject you are likely to do best 1e and what is. the subject that presents the least me- chanieal difficulties in accomplshment that you want to undertake. Now, the suggestion of the distinguished eentle- man seems to me to have great merit, and I offer it here only for the purpose of having it brought to your attention, so that when you come to write to the Committee and make your criticisms you may have that idea in your minds. He Says that the subject which needs restatement more than any other and that can'be more easily re- stated than any other is the subject of contracts, and that there is one man pre-eminently fitted to do that job. The first letter of his name‘is pretty far down in the alphabet. But everybody would accept a restate- ment of the law of contracts after its submission in the manner in which Mr. William Draper Lewis has said it would be submitted, and it seems to me that that suggestion commends itself because of its practi- eability. Now, obviously we ought not to undertake at this meeting to decide the program for: the Committee which will be in charge of the work. All they have the78 right to expect from us 1s just such reactions as these. It seems to me that if we can throw out in the course of the discussion criticisms of the kind that | have re- peated, not as original criticism, it will be helpful. It does seem to me that while we may be pressed, Governor Hadley, by public opinion, to reform the law oenerally so as to make it more responsive to pub- lic sentiment in the matter of punishing erime and avoiding such situations as the gentleman from Louisl- ana has referred to—and he acknowledges that Wis- consin is ahead of Louisiana—while we may be pressed from that angle, we have a practical job to do, and that is to restate the common law, and the Committee ought to take as its first subject that subject which it believes it can restate most readily, most promptly and most effectively. ( After the incorporation ot the Institute and the adoption of the by-laws, a Committee on Nominations Was appointed and withdrew. ) Tue CHatrMAan: Gentlemen, as the Committee on Nominations seems to be taking an unconscionable time, will you permit me to take this opportunity to answer the question put by Mr. Albers, before the re- cess, with regard to money? I think it was a very appropriate question, and one which has doubtless oc- curred to many members. The volunteer committee that started this matter realized that it would cost a great deal of money to go on with the work. They realized that the work can- not be done by casual dipping in of busy men out of the hours of their ordinary business, that able and competent men have got to be employed and paid to devote their time to the work, in the first instance. They realized also that it was impossible to secure funds for any oreat enterprise SO long as it was vague79 and problematical and that it was necessarv to ecarrv it to such a point that persons appealed to to contrib- ute would see that there was a real movement. with real power behind it, and a reasonable certainty of its eoing on and doing work; and they felt confident that if this body which has been called together here put itself behind the undertaking, that they could then go to the same sources whieh have endowed the colleges and the hospitals and all the great public institutions supported by private contributions, the same sources that supply the money for Eastern Relief and the Red Cross, and be certain that a great publie work having public recognition and needing only to be supplied with means to carry it on, the response would be be yond doubt. Of course if the money cannot be raised to pay the expenses the undertaking will fail. Equally, of course, if this body is to be behind the work the money will be obtained. Herpert S. Haptey (Colorado): I move, if now in order, the resolution that was offered this morning. (See page 20.) | certainly should not want an acceptance of this resolution simply upon my opinion, but I have felt, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Institute, that the consideration of this question upon the part of the Council was both desirable and necessary, in response to an overwhelming public opinion of the people of the United States of America that there was some- thing definitely wrong with the enforcement of their eriminal laws and that something might be done con- tributory to the removing of those defects and objec- o our law clear, more certain and more tions, by makng simple in statement. I wish, in the very remarks I make, to practically clear up what I found at the luncheon hour was a mis-SU understanding of the scope of the resolution and otf the considerations that had prompted it. This is nota direction to the Council to undertake a restatement of the law of crimes or criminal proced- ure. It is a request to the Council that it vive prompt and earetul study LO the need and practicability of the restatement of the law of crimes and eriminal pro- cedure, and if it is found desirable and practicable that then they proceed to such a restatement. Now it 18 unnecessalry, ot course, to restate the matters that have been stated here, in the common knowledge oft every lawyer. It is not intended or sug- eested in anything I said this morning that one-third of our decisions, the decisions of our appellate courts, were wrong, or that one-third of the decisions of our trial courts were wrong; but what I did say was that ‘n one-third of the decisions that’ came for review be- fore the appellate courts the appellate courts that have the last guess upon the question have said that the courts were wrong. Now, my thought—and I think the thought of the t with the question of the entorce- men who have dea ment of the criminal laws of this country in a practica- ble way, as I dealt with it in a practical way ten ut. men in the penitentiary years—sIx years trying to p and four years in trying to see whether they should be let out—I am quite certain that a large part of that uncertainty, that hesitancy, that timidity that consti- tutes the conduct of the criminal processes in the trial courts, could be removed if there was a statement of the fundamental principles of the law of crimes and criminal procedure for the use of the trial courts that had behind it the splendid sanction of this great body, representing the judgment of the profession of law in this country. And it is for the purpose of doing that much for the accomplishment of what can be accomplished by definiteness and certainty of defini-Sl tion, eliminating entirely any incursion in the fields of reform, of penology, of criminology, sticking to clarity of definition, to certainty of statement. in order that we might give to our law that definiteness and cer- taintv that has been the great element of strength of the eivil law. Wiuwiam I. Scuarrer (Pennsylvania): I am not certain that I have just the same concept of what we are doing here that Governor Hadley has. What l understand we are to do is, if I may use the phrase of another who is here, who has been too modest to state it himself, that we are the scientists of a branch of science, the science of the law, that we are to en- deavor to raise up the past masters in that science, the Huxleys, the Haegels and the Darwins, in order that they shall restate not what the law ought to be but what the law is. Now. if that be the purpose of this gathering, then perhaps it may be all right to restate the sub- stantive side of the criminal law—although it does seem to me that the substantive side of the criminal law, which in the main is very largely definitions of crime, is covered almost completely in the criminal codes of the various states or, as I said when I was on my feet before, that we would be trenching on what is within the realm of statutory law. But if that is the purpose of Governor Hadley’s resolution, for us to state, or for the Council to state, what they conceive to be a better criminal adminis- tration, or a better criminal code of procedure, then I think it is far beyond the scope of what we are oathered here to do. What the judge wants to know, and where this Institute can help the judge, and what the active prac- titioner wants to know, is what the law is—because82 the judge must decide the law, not on what the law ought to be, but on what the law is. If it is deemed wise to restate the fundamental principles of substan- tive eriminal law, then I think possibly it is within the scope, if that is deemed proper, of this Institute. But for the Council of this Institute to state either what the criminal law ought to be or what crim- inal procedure ought to be, then it gets this Institute out into the realms of controversy, into politics, and it runs counter to the differences that there are in custom in the different states that have made criminal procedure gradually rise up to what criminal proced- ure really is in the different jurisdictions, and I think that would be outside the limits of what this Institute is intended to accomplish. [Is not this Institute intended to give in the realm of the common law the datum poimt from which we are to start, the datum point of what is, and not what the Institute or the Council of the Institute thinks ) ought to be? In the realm of that we are on safe eround. In the realm of what ought to be, then this Institute is in great danger for the future, it seems to Ae. EKpwin R. Keepy (Pennsylvania): Mr. Chairman, reference has been made both by yourself and other speakers, in connection with the discussion of Mr. Hadley’s resolution, to the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. As the representa- tive of that Institute at this meeting I feel it my duty to speak very briefly regarding the subject under con- sideration. Mr. Chairman, you, sir, in your opening address, explained the omission of criminal law and procedure, as [ understand it, from the line of those subjects which would be considered by this Institute because the subject is already being handled by the Institute1! Oo of Criminal Law. Permit me, sir, with all deference, to point out two respects in which the work that is being done by that Institute, however worthy it may be, falls short of the standard of work that 1s contem- plated by this Association. As I understand the report of the Committee which has been submitted, two of the great merits that are to be attached to the work that this Institute will do result from the fact, first, that there will be means available for the production ot work: and, secondly, that the work when done will have an authoritative support. The work of the Institute of Criminal Law has neither of those two classifications. All the work that is done there is volunteer work, by members of the Institute. When adopted by that Institute that work has not the authoritative stamp which the proposi- tions put forth by this Institute will have. So therefore I desire to point out that whether or not eriminal law is a subject that should be consid- ered by this Institute is an open question and we can- not dispose of it by saying that it 1s already ade- quately handled. With regard to what has already been said, | should like to take exception to the very distinguished entleman who pointed out that most of the law of «7 SS ] erimes and procedure, in fact I think the statement was practically all of the law, is statutory. There are vast fields of criminal law and of procedure that rest en- tirely on the decisions of the courts. In many in- stances, even when we have statutes, there are no defi- nitions. The statute will read, for instance, that mur- der will be punished with death, leaving 1t for the court to decide what murder in that jurisdiction iS. . should like to refer to the statements which were made as to the restatement of the law, that the54 purpose was to merely restate what the law is, recog- nizing that there are differences in the law in various jurisdictions. If we were in one jurisdiction we could confine ourselves to a statement of the law, but in this oreat national body, when it comes to restating law, it must state first many principles of law that have been held, and then it seems to me there is nothing to do except to state what in its opinion is the best rule on the subject. With rules varying there cannot be any statement of the rule; there must be a statement of what is considered to be the best rule. And there- fore in the variations that exist in this country as to the substantive criminal law and as to the procedure of eriminal law, | submit with all deference that there is a vast field there that can well be considered by this Association. | would say in closing that the introduction to the report which has been presented by the Committee to this Conference, where it speaks of the popular inter- est in the administration of law, in the dissatisfaction with its present administration, dissatisfaction with the uncertainties and complexities that exist, it is chiefly be- cause of the uncertainties and complexities in the ad- ministration of the criminal law, not the civil law, that that feeling of dissatisfaction exists in this country. CLARENCE N. Goopwin (Illinois): Mr. Chairman, L will not take over one minute. Not one-tenth part of the criminal law is in the code. Practically nine- tenths of it rests in decisions of the courts. There is no branch that needs clarifying and simplifying more than the criminal law, and we have the misfortune—I speak from the standpoint of one who has had the mis- fortune to sit in the criminal court—to be in the situ- ation that there is no appeal on the part of the State, and if it goes up it is not well considered by the Su-So preme Court and an erroneous principle is crystallized into the law until you have a great debris of authority that impedes the proper administration of justice. Now, I do not know whether this Council will consider it practicable to take up that phase of the law, but will we not give them a chance to take it up if they think it is advisable? Louis B. Ewseanx (Indiana): Mr. Chairman, ag |] understood this resolution when it was read, it says that the Council have the right to do as they think feasible and desirable. It has been suggested here now that there are vast fields, it has been repeated over and over again, that there are vast fields of the criminal law, and we all know that there are. The second by-law we adopted is that the object of the In- stitute shall be to promote the clarification and simpli- fication of the law and its better adaptation to social needs and to secure the better administration of jus- tice, and to carry on scholarly and scientific legal work, which means that we give to this Council the author- ity to determine between any single subject of the criminal law and any single subject of the civil law. Somebody has suggested that three minor titles of the civil law might be suggested, if they could find some- body worthy to consider them, and somebody else Says the criminal law. I think the criminal law is about as definite as the civil side of the law: and if we are simply going to decide between the eriminal law on the one side and all of the great body of the common law relating to civil matters on the other side we have determined nothing. If we are not going to make if any more narrow than that, the subject of indictments alone perhaps would be sufficient to occupy the time of the Couneil for years. If we are not going to make it any more definite than that, if we have not made it86 anv more definite than our second by-law has made it, the objects of our Institute | and I move to lay this motion on the table. (The resolution to lay Mr. Hadley’s motion on the ave not been accomplished, table was agreed to.) Tun CHatrman: Nevertheless, that does not pre- vent the Couneail from doing what is proposed in the resolution; and will you permit the Chair to suggest that if the Council will study the subject they may find an opportunity to fix the responsibility for evils ‘n the administration of criminal law, and when they. say that, it cannot be cured by their work. Honus R. Battey (Massachusetts): Mr. Chairman, hefore the meeting adjourns, it seems to me a few ie subject touched upon words should be said upon 1 this forenoon, namely, the desirability of taking up the law of corporations. The experience of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws indicates that this subject is so far a matter of statu- tory law that it is very difficult to make a uniform statement in regard to it. The Conference of Commissioners for over ten years has been at work trying to draft a uniform law on corporations and so far without success. The sub- ject of contracts seems much more likely to prove suit- able for the work of the Institute. Wittiam Drarer Lewis (Pennsylvania): I think, \ir. Chairman, in view of the remarks of my friend, Mr. Bailey, that I ought to explain why the so-called reporters who drafted the first draft of this report mentioned the three subjects that they did. In doing so | want to be distinetly understood as representing all the members of the Committee when I say that we are quite sure now that we were right. Yet it is per- haps due to the Committee and to the report that thatS/ explanation be made, We were anxious to oe] three subjects which would present entirely different kinds of problems. That seemed to us desirable. It seemed desirable that the three subjects that were selected should all present different kinds of problems. Conflict of laws, on which no eriticism has been offered here, or so far as I know elsewhere, was se- lected because—or suggested, I make a mistake when I say selected, because these thines were mere sugoes- tions—was suggested because it was felt that in that subject there was a great deal of conflict. that the judge, when a case of conflict of laws was presented, was contronted with varying decisions. That was the reason tor that selection. As to corporations, there was an entirely differ- ent proposition. Mr. Bailey has pointed out the ob- vious fact that as far as the organization of corpora- tions goes, and even beyond the organization of cor- porations, the subject is a partly statutory subject. Ags far as the organization is concerned, it js completely a statutory subject. I presents very great diffieul- ties, but it does present this kind of a difficulty, and sooner or later, whether it is wise to tackle it at first or not is another matter, but sooner or later the In- stitute have got to tackle a topic like corporations in which the fundamental conception of the thine’ itself is the real underlying cause of the uncertainty and confusion in the law. The third subject, torts and negligence. was se- lected because it seemed that those who suggested that subject thought that in negligence we have an exam- ple of the laws of the fundamental rules of the subject and a multitude of minor rules and of their applica- tion. The confusion and difficulty of negligence, therefore, and of corporations and of conflict of laws presented three different types. I do not know whether we were right or not in suggesting subjects that would,88 at the start, bring out all the various kinds of diffi- culties. but I do think that you will agree with me when I sav that over the first years of the work on this re- statement of the law, it is rather important that while we do not fly to too great difficulties at the start, we at least take subjects sufficiently varied to give us, over the first five or ten years of the Institute, a varied experience, Now that, I again emphasize, is not at all an address in favor of those three subjects. I think there may be many objections to corporations on the one hand, and perhaps negligence on the other. In fact, the only subject upon which I personally am confident that the Institute should begin is conflict of laws. As to that I have never heard anyone express any doubt. In regard to contracts, I think the suggestion as far as this member of the Committee is concerned, finds a very warm response. I have made these brief remarks, gentlemen, simply to show you the reasons for the suggestions, not ot the Committee, but the suggestions of some members of the Committee. The Committee have submitted in their report these things for your consideration. Tne CuHairman: Is there any further business to be brought before the meeting? If not, gentlemen, before we adjourn permit me to say that I have been fifty-six years at the American bar, and that I have never seen so distinguished and competent a meeting of the bench and bar as this. Let me say also that from a long and deeply interested study of the spirit of the people of our country I am, satisfied that there has been no previous period in the history of the development of American institutions when such a meeting as this. held in such a spirit as has been expressed here, would have been possible. Thereupon the meeting adjourned,TEXT OF ADDRESSES AT THE DINNER. [On the evening of February 23d, the first dinner of the Institute was held at the New Willard Hotel in Washington, the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. Members of t Bar Association, of the State Bar tion of the District of Columbia were invited to subscribe in behalf of he Institute, of The American Associations and of the Bar Associa- themselves and of ladies of their families accompanying them. The dinner was arranged by a Committee, of which George T. Weitzel, of the District of Columbia, was chairman. | Tre CHIEF JUSTICE: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Law In- stitute: It is a great pleasure and a great honor to be ealled to preside over this final function of this notable meeting. I had the pleasure of hearing but one speech this morning and that was so adequate to the oceasion that I feel like giving it to you in diluted form. One thine that the Chairman said was that this was a gathering of the most distinguished men in this country, of historical significance. Well, I agree. But there are certain features of it that I hesitate to refer LO, but it will come out. | think if minimizes the office of a supreme justice. Every other man I have met is a supreme justice and every fourth man | have met 1S a chief justice.. It is very common. Perhaps that 1s CA a good lesson for those who have thought that that was an exceptional position worthy of great respect. It has a tendency to reduce the size of a man’s head. That helps, especially in a judge. There are three..great departments: of the law ae Re: A 1 which need reform: one is. the criminal law, another Sg is the administration of the civil law anda third 1s the substantive civil law. And if there is any other branch of the law it does not oecur to Me now. It 1s not possible for one association to attend to9.) it all. The difficulties in dealing with the criminal law are in popular sentiment and in the legislatures of the country. It is the habit to attack the courts beeause of the inefficient administration of the erim- inal law. But it is very unjust. One of the great —— reasons for the defects in the administration of the eriminal law is the unwillineness of legislatures to give to the judges of the courts that try criminals the necessary power in the procedure of those courts to ——_- —-—___. render justice to those who come before them. - It is a very difficult matter to bring home to legis- latures, in the criticisms that may be heard on the floors of legislatures as to the inadequacy of the prose- cution of eriminals, the fact that they are responsible and not the courts. So. too, in the administration of the eivil law, while I do not mean to say the judges may not be lack- ing in energy, in industry and in enforcement of all that they have the power to enforce, the administra- tion of the law cannot be made thoroughly effective until the legislatures and Congress are roused to the necessity of doing something radical in the matter of the improvement of the procedure. Now then, that creates the great obstacles in the improvement of those two branches of the law, namely, the difficulty of interesting legislatures and Congress in the necessity for action, and in giving to them a proper sense ot proportion AS TO the impor- tance of devoting their whole time, if need be, to the reform of legal procedure, criminal and civil. Now I agree that the Institute of Law as organ- ized has taken over all that it can do in assigning to itself the restatement of the substantive law and the reform of the present complexity of that law, and I felicitate them that in this work they do not have to deal with legislatures at all. For, if I understand the91 plan, it is not to codify the results that are to be reached through the work of this Institute, but it is to afford to judges, and to others who would find out what the law is. a souree for reaching a sound conclusion in every branch of that substantive law by consulting the work of experts trained in restating impartially that law, and the reason for it, so that they may have a basis upon which to found their opinions. And the advantage of the system is that by the merit of what is done the success will be meas- ured. If the result does not justify the effort then you have yourselves to blame. It is going to take some time. If you get through in a decade you will have accomplished much. But it is a great satisfac- tion to know that you are willing to undertake a work that will take so long in these days when public opin- ion does not seem to be satisfied unless the reform which is to protect them shall be realized next morn- ine for breakfast. But I congratulate you that the work which you are to do is work completely within your control and the success depends upon the ade- quacy of what you do and not upon persuading other people and getting other people interested in what you do. Mr. Root said this morning that the influence of a man like Story or of a man like Kent upon the law no one can estimate, and it is that kind of influence that your work is going to exercise. You are cong to have in the experts who are to help you representa- tives of the law schools, and I stop for a moment to pay tribute to the high influence and the influence for good upon the law that the improvement of the law schools of the country has had upon the scientific study of the law and the influence that the publication of the law school journals has had upon the decisions of the courts.92 You will add to the scientific study of the law a practical knowledge of it by associating together the leaders of the law schools with the leaders of the bar in this work. [ felicitate you upon your president. Whenever real constructive work is to be done, not to be talked about, but to be done, whenever real statesmanship is to manifest itself, we turn to Elihu Root. He may be quiet, he may not make many speeches, but he makes the thing go, and that is because he looks ahead. Now I was invited to preside under the agreement that I was not to speak. ‘I was only to introduce those who are capable of speaking. After a man reaches the place that I have, speech is not expected of him and he has more than he ean attend to in what he hears. We have some speakers here. We have a gentle- man with whom I sympathize in his course. He re- tired from politic S and became a eollege professor, He got promoted. And it is not so bad after. you have tried it, either. He went to a university, the Univer- sity of Colorado was fortunate enough to secure his services, and he devoted himself | Suppose he did, beeause I have been through the same experience—to keeping. ahead of his class. And in spite of’ that burden and that necessity he found time enough to look into another system of law and_ both as .a jurist and as,an historian he..found time enough to prepare for publication and to publish a most dehghtful history which vindiecates Augustus as one of the greatest law givers and organizers of peace- ful government that the world ever saw. And he ere- ates, | think, a more reliable sense of proportion be- tween Augustus and his uncle Julius. If you have not read that book I commend it to you. It is with great pleasure that I ask Governor Hadley to say something to us on the Roman Law.9 9 vo GOVERNOR Hapuey: Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen: ] appre- ciate the generous, and I am afraid too complimentary words of introduction with which I have been pre- sented to this splendid audience. When I told my friend Davis, a man who has charmed with his eloquence the crowned heads of Kurope and spoken before the most brilliant audi- ences of the HKuropean capitals, that I would really rather look at this audience, or a very considerable portion of it, than try to talk to it, he confided to me the fact that it was the most distinguished audi- ence both in appearance and in personnel that he had ever had the pleasure of appearing before. Now I do not know that it is fair that I should have taken away from him that compliment, particularly as he told me that he had planned to speak upon the same subject that I had if he had only got the first chance at the audience. [ do not know why I should have been asked to speak upon a strictly historical subject on a dinner oc- easion unless perhaps the time of the meeting was somewhat cut short. But when our quiet-spoken but highly efficient secretary, William Draper Lewis, to whom, second only to the Chairman of this important occasion, Mr. Root, the profession throughout the country are indebted for the successful progress of this work up to the present time—when he first asked me to speak upon the subject of the Jus- tinian and the Napoleonie codes as offering’ interest- ing analogies to the work we are undertaking to accomplish, I told him that he ought to get some- body who was really a specialist on the subject. He told me I had been asked because they wanted some- body who did not know too much about the subject, that he had read Lytton Strachey’s Eminent Victo-94 rians. in which it is asserted that ignorance is the ‘equisite in the writing of history, and that what ‘ted was one who was not unable to see the first 1 he wal forest on account of the trees. Now upon that explanation | weakly yielded to the importunities of our secretary to speak upon this and I want to tell you as briefly and as subject, . can something of the work that was ac- clearly as complished in these two oreal historic codifiecations ot the law for their possible suggestions or analogies in the work we are undertaking to accomplish. And in any movement that we make to improve our own, it is natural that we should turn to the sys- tem of jurisprudence of that remarkable race of men who over two thousand years ago extended their civ- ‘lization, their dominion and their culture over the Mediterranean Basin and Western Europe. For there have been in the history of the world but two ereat civilizations of the same general kind and character, Roman civilization and the Huropean civ- ilization of the present day of which we are a part; as there have been in the history of the world but two oreat systems of jurisprudence, the Roman law and the common law of the English-speaking people. And when we consider the achievements of the Romans, either from the standpoint of their civilization or of their jurisprudence, we cannot but be filled with rev- erence for ‘‘the great of old, for those dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule our spirits from their graves.’’ It has been frequently stated that the American people are not interested in history, and sometimes 1n- deed it does seem that they are feartul of looking backward o’er the page of history lest they should meet with the fate of Lot’s wife and be turned to a pillar of salt. But I undertake to say that before95 this audience it is unnecessary to con furnishes the background for al] intelligent living not only of nations but of individuals. It is in that light and for that purpose that ] attention to the work that was the same line that we are tend that history want to turn your accomplished, along now undertaking to pro- ceed, fifteen hundred years ago, While it is true that there are marked similar- ities in the laws of all nations whieh have something of the same degree ture, yet there are two great | the law makers and law arrived at of civilization and eul- eople who stand Out as givers and law entoreers of history—the Romans and the Knglish-speaking peo- ple. Their systems of Jurisprudence ilar; each of them had as a foundation an unwritten constitution upon which they erected a superstructure of statute and of common law: and thoug] law developed more through restatement tion than has the common law, yet were very sim- 1 the Roman and codifiea- each system was essentially a judge-made system in which the common law was the dominant, the important and the control- ling part of their systems of jurisprudence, law, like the common law of the English-speaking peo- ple, began in the intense formalism and technicalities Re ynan incident to its early period, but as it progressed it went from complexities and artificialities to simplicity, as is the progress of all systems of jurisprudence ap- parently, except the criminal law of the United States. I trust that last remark will not be laid upon the table. The various steps by which the Roman law se- a —— ape ‘ap cs a TT] : cured its development were works of codification. the Lwelve Tables are usually accepted as the beginning of — pee ——— ——— Roman Law and tl] e foundation 0 it. That was dis- tinetly a work of codification that had behind it a lone period of legal development. But the laws of the96 Twelve Tables were not in the nature of a eonstitu- tion, they were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unchanged and unchangeable, but they were subject to interpretation by the courts, and, being sub- ject to interpretation by the courts that administered them, they were subject to repeal or modification by the courts that interpreted them. The next step following the _adoption of the Twelve Tables which gave coherency and unity and harmony to the Roman law, was the Itdict of the Pretors, which was in its real effect _a_ statement _by uch unced the principles that he would follow in the court every year 1n of the presiding officer he anno the interpretation of the Twelve Tables, the jurisdic- ee EE meee ani —— — o- —= tion that he would assume, and the principles of law ————— that he would apply in the decisions themselves. And thus the law secured a continued restatement which was subject to the changing economic and moral con- ditions of the time and expressed what law in its last analysis should always be, the moral judgment of the period to which it applied. But Roman law during this period did not have what our common law has always had, the direction of the scientifically trained lawyers and of judges. The pretors. were not lawyers, not necessarily trained in the law. Men who practiced in the courts were not trained lawyers, and those who par- ticipated in the actual decision of cases were not nec- essarily trained in legal principles. Thus during this period Roman law was like a ship without a rudder or a pilot. It frequently made its port by reason of the judement and the ©ood sense of the people who ad- ministered it, but it did not have a system of naviga- tion which insured correct results or which was sure always of bringing the ship to the right harbor. In the beginning of the Roman Empire there was97 introduced a great reform in the Roman law which accomplished three great-results which are of conse- quence to civilization today. By an order of the Em- Augustus, certain JEeTOT \ ) » perol jurisconsults_ wel given the right to advise in the decision of cases, and thus for eee We eee Nn Or cases, and thus To the first time in in _ the history of the Roman law there was introduced — an officer ‘corresponding in authority See ee ee a See and in function to the judges whose decisions have on a — developed the common law _of_ the English-s eaking people. In addition, this order giving official authority to eee saltacin the di . a : x the jurisconsults in the decision of cases and the right of advising the pretors, made the profession of the law a learned profession and STC about it _the establishment of law schools and t the oiving of seien- And so, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we might regard Augustus Cesar as the patron saint of the legal profession in that he introduced into the Roman law the work and the authority of the judges; he made our profession a learned profession and he made it depend upon a system of legal education. With this addition of a scientific legal direction, the —— Roman _ law developed_ak along scientific lines” _into the harmonious, the equitable, the « ftective system which —_— has had such an_influence_ “upon all subsequent _civili- ——— ne _ ae zation.. By the early part of the second century it be- came e possible fo do away y with the yearly edicts which had been issued by the pri etors and the common law ee of Rome was summed_up in a final rest iteme nt under the direction of an able lawyer by the name of f Salvius Julianus, in the reign of Emperor Hadrian; and that perpetual edict t became in effect _a_restateme ont. ot f the erpetual edict became 1 elle law of the Roman people. — In the latter part of the second century there was another marked step along the line of scientific legal98 development in the commentaries of one whose first name alone has been preserved for us, Gaius, who ens iceemael en wrote in the time of the Antonines and usher red 1 in n the classical age of Roman. jurisprudence, During tl ; the course of the ne xt century he was followed _ by. other able. commentators who oave to. the Roman law a ce ———$_$___— = Se gr eae wealth of interpretation and of commentaries which rounded out the system and made _possible_ its final cod fication and prese rv ation in the code of Justinian, Among the notable comm mtators of the latter part of the second and the first half of the third nturies were U Ipian, Paulus, _Gaius, is, Papinian and Binge ‘stinus. Papinian w: the most distinguished of the lot and he has made the name of a lawyer honored in the history of the world. When he was asked by the Emperor Caracalla, who had killed his brother, to write a brief justifying the act, he made the historic eply that it was easier for an emperor to kill his brother than it was for him to justify it, and that he would consider that he was guilty of the offense of murder did he unjustly accuse one who was not ouilty. With this situation you can readily understand that the Roman law had by this time assumed a very concrete and defimite form. But with the close of the third century the sources of former legislation were abolished and all power of law making was given to the emperor, _Ihe imperial decrees the 1 became the fountain sources of law and. it_was the multipheity and the aes ‘of these _that finally brought about the work of Justinian which stands as a model of all iiecddone aa ts along that line. In. the early bart of the fourth century the first code was prepared | a lawyer of | distinction, _Gire- other ic prepared by anaes. lawyer, Toes anus. And the definiteness which was eiven to the law by these two codifications was further made99 effective by a rule of citations adopted by the empe- rors Theodosius and Valentinian, making the writings of the five commentators to whom I have referred the O ——— F ficial authorities in all the courts of the empire. So ereat was the distinction of Papinian that whatever side he may have been on when they were equally di- vided was considered the decision of the majority. Following this work of unofficial codification and — restatement, Theodosius, in the middle of the fifth century, undertook to accomplish what Justinian ————— - = - = See nee accom lished the number of law books and legal authorities had one hundred years later, He stated that increased to such a point that they were beyond the power of mortal man to master. And so, with the Le eollee- assistance of a commission, he undertook t tion of imperial decrees and also the codification of the unwritten law. In the troubled conditions then existing in the Roman Empire he accomplished only the work of collecting and of abridging the imperial decrees of the emperors. One hundred years later Justinian undertook and accomplished the work that Theodosius had begun one hundred years before. For the purpose of the work that we are un- dertaking I will impose upon your patience and good nature to tell just a little in detail how the different commissions under Justinian carried on their work. He directed that in the eodifiecation of the imperial constitution or decrees of the emperors only these three former codifications should be consid. ered. He appointed a eommission of ten men in his- {orice recognition of the tradition of Roman history that the Twelve Tables had been framed by ten wise men. The chairman of that commission was lus, the Ex-Arch, and Tribonian, a most remarkable The commission took the man, was also a member. and codifications of Hermogenianus and Gregorianus100 the Theodosian Code and in a period of fourteen months completed the first publication of what is known as the Code Justinian. So encouraged was Jus- tinian by the suecess of this effort that he extended his activities to the codification or collection of the ecom- mon law. And so he appointed another commission composed of sixteen men, of which, this time, Tribo- nian was the chairman and of which four law pro- fessors were members—among whom were Theophilus, of the school at Constantinople, and Dorotheus from the school at Berytus. They divided themselves into three sections and certain writings were assigned to each of these divisions. There were thirty-nine com- mentators whose works were considered. Only one statement was to be made upon any one subject, and this was to be revised and restated so as to bring the law in harmony with present conditions of life. After a work of three years, although ten years were allowed to the commission to accomplish it, this work was completed. Two thousand books were ex- amined amounting to something over three million Sentences or periods. They were reduced to fifty books consisting of some one hundred and itty thou- sand sentences; and the Roman law, the common law of the Roman Empire, was thus reduced to nine thou- sand one hundred and twenty-three legal propositions, In the Code of Imperial Decrees the number of existing’ statutes gathered together was four thousand seven hundred. And so, Mr. Chief Justice, the administra- tion of the law was comparatively a simple process when they only had forty-seven hundred statutes to examine and nine thousand one hundred and twenty- three legal statements gathered from all of the ecom- mentators who had written upon the subject of the common law of the empire. During the progress of this work it had become101 necessary to issue some fifty imperial decrees har- monizing conflicts in the unwritten law and also cor- recting conflicts in the imperial decrees of the differ- ent emperors, and so the reforming of the first code was again undertaken, and again the ubiquitous and resourceful Tribonian was appointed chairman of this commission. Also during the progress of the work it became evident that some simpler statement of the law was necessary not only as a basis of instruction. but for the use of the courts, and another commission consisting of three men, again with Tribonian as chairman, and Theophilus and Dorotheus, these two law professors, as his assistants, undertook a revision of the Institutes of Gaius. This work was issued prac- tically coincident with the issuing of the digest. A year later the second revision of the Code was issued ; and thus in a period of one year the entire scope of Roman law was covered, the entire body of the law was published in three works, the Code, the Digest and the Institutes. They were published under im- perial decree, they beeame the law of the empire; it was against the law to quote any previous authority, it was against the law to comment in any way upon the law as found in these three volumes. Tribonian is probably the master spirit of this ereat work of achievement and from what we know of him he must have been a remarkable man. He has been referred to as the Sir Francis Bacon of Roman history. He was a historian, he was an astronomer, he was a mathematician, he was a poet, he was a pub- licist and he was a courtier. We can judge of his abil- ity in all of these lines by a record that he has left of his achievement in the last mentioned regard. He stated that he had only one concern in reference to the Emperor Justinian and that was that he was so superlatively good and great that he feared that Prov- A 1 en ne102 idence would raise him alive upon high to help rule the universe. However, as Justinian enjoyed, with the excep- tion of Augustus, the longest reign of any of the Roman emperors, it is evident that God Almighty was not similarly impressed with the necessity of making Justinian his first assistant. The work of Justinian, notable as it was, seems to have attracted but little attention at the time. I do not know that it attracted as much notice as the form- ing of The American Law Institute. It has very little place in the literature of the period. It was written in a language that the people to whom tt applied did not generally understand; it was directed by an emperor the dominant personality who.was responsible for it of Slavie blood, whose real name was Upranda: 5 was a Macedonian. And so, in the Greek eity of « Constantinople, in the evening of the greatness of a = the Roman Empire, there was prepared this state- ment of the body of the Roman Law, which was to have such a great subsequent influence upon the history of the world. In addition to becoming the law of the Empire, it was made the basis of all legal] in- struction in the schools of law. The course of instruc- tion was increased from four to five years, and the law schools were limited to those at Constantinople, Rome and Berytus, the law schools in Alexandria, Cesarea and Athens having been suppressed. H,. G. Wells, in his ‘‘Outline of History,’’ 1s so indignant over the fact that these schools were sup- pressed that he neglects to mention the Corpus Juris Civilis of Justinian which, next to the Bible, has had a more profound influence upon the history of the world than any other book. The Roman law as thus preserved in the work of Justinian did not at once become the law of what we103 know _as_the Western Hemisphere, which for one hundred years had been in the possession of. bar- barian chieftains; and it was not for twenty years after it was published that even a formal author- ity was re-established by Justinian west of the Adriatic. Even then the Code of Theodosius, modi- fied by barbarian customs and laws, continued largely as the law of Western Europe. It was not until the revival of learning in the twelfth century. in the universities of Italy and particularly of Bologna 8 ‘ Nee Se ee ee that Roman law came into the vast influence that_it has been destined to exert. At the University of Bo- logna in the thirteenth century there were as many as ten thousand students studying Roman law, and there were twelve universities throughout Italy teach- ing it to the students who came there from all sec- tions of the western world. In the preliminary re- vival of learning and in the application of medieval standards of civilization and culture as a basis of the reorganization of western Europe after the Dark Ages there was no one influence which was more important, which was more far-reaching in extent, than was the Roman law as it was taught in the universities of Italy and of western Europe. It became not only the basis of legal learning, but of juristic thought and general eulture, and thus it continued down through the Middle Ages. codification, it was a work of revision, it was a work ——— The work of Justinian_was really not a work of of abridgment, it was_a work of collection. The Code of Napoleon is more distinctly a work of codification than was the work which it took as its prototype. Following the revival in the study and the use. of the Roman law in the twelfth and thirteenth cen- turies, it became generally the law of southern France. In the northern provinces, the customs of the various a ee104 races who lived fhere generally prevailed even over races who lived | 2ven_ OF the Roman_law. Then the ordinances of the king's and the Canon Law had a ereat influence, the ecclesi- astical courts having a very considerable civil and erim- inal jurisdiction. It was not until the sixteenth cen- tury that the name of the Corpus Juris ( Ivilis was pli od . the ereat work done under or Justinian, and ad was in. “contradistinction foe. the corpus Juris C‘anonici, which was the law of the Roman € Catholic church. This condition of confusion that existed in the laws of France had long been recognized and Voltaire declared that one in travelling in France had to change his laws as often as he changed his horses. Fiven as early as the seventeenth century Louis XIV had un- dertaken a work of correction and had done consider- able toward the framing of a code of procedure which should bring about some correction of the confusion and the uncertainty of the law. This was followed by his suecessors and one of the first declarations by the revolutionary government was in favor of the har- monizing of the conflicting provisions of French law. The battle ery of the French Revolution, ‘‘ Liberty, equality and fraternity,’’ was a declaration not only for equality before the law but for equa ility of the law throughout the entire territory of France. And their first act, or one of their early acts, at least, was to appoint a commission to undertake the codification of the French law. This commission made a report in two years to the National Assembly, but the National Assembly refused to accept it for the reason that it contained no grand and nas sounding ideas. And then France temporarily abandoned the work of codi- fication. She by monarchical foes, she had to devote herself to a struggle for existence, but after she had t ee over her enemies and had risen su- perior to her difficulties, as I hope and believe she will105 again triumph over the indifference of her allies and the trickery and opposition of enemies and rise supe- rior to her difficulties (applause), she turned again to the work of reforming her system of jurisprudence. In 1799, when the first Consulate was established, provision was also made for the work of codification, and this time there were appointed to carry on this work of restatement and codification some judges. The work under Justinian had been done entirely by law- yers and teachers of law, but four judges of the courts of appeal were appointed under the first Consulate to prepare a code and the work progressed very much along the same lines that it would naturally take in official action of the present day. The first draft was submitted to all the other superior judges of the Republic and after their criticisms a new draft was prepared which was’ submitted for consideration to the Council of State, and after discussion a third draft was prepared and _ that was submitted, in turn, to the vote of the National Assembly. It was rejected not because it had no high- sounding ideas, but because there was too much in it for them to digest. So it was withdrawn by the Gov- ernment and then it was introduced piecemeal, a sec- tion at a time or a subject at a time, and in that way it secured final enactment. It was not complete, however, for the reason that there had to be four ancillary codes, a code of com- meree relating to commercial law, a criminal code, a code of criminal procedure, and a code of civil pro- eedure. This completed the work of codification of the French law. It was first called the code of the French people, but three years later, when Napoleon became emperor, he changed its name to the Code of Napoleon, by which it is generally known in history. But his contributions to the accomplishment of this work have, in the estimate of careful historians, been106 regarded as comparatively small. He presided over most of the meetings of the Council of State, but at those meetings he made irrelevant and rambling dis- courses, although he is credited with having’ made some important observations upon the subjects of mar- riage and divorcee. The great character, the great personality of the codification known as the Code of Napoleon was Cam- bacerés—I hope my wife has told me the correct pro- nunciation—just as Tribonian was the dominating personality in the one of Justinian. Through the Code of Napoleon, the Code of Justinian has established the legal principles of practically all of the nations _of ee _ — western. Kurope. The Code of Napoleon has found adoption in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Portugal and Poland, in Switzerland, in Italy, and codes follow- ing closely upon it were adopted in the German prov- inces, in Roumania and Greece. The principles of the Roman Law became the law, not only of western Kurope, but of Russia, Spain, South and Central America, they were adopted by the Empire of Japan, they furnished the basis of such codification as has been adopted in China, and they furnished to a large extent, the basis of the laws of Islam, outside of the Koran. The principles of the Roman law have been made the basis of international law, they have given to the English law its admiralty law, the law of domestic relations, its law of merchants, its equity law, and the idea of corporate existence. In fact, there is scarcely a department of our far-reaching system, with the ex- ception of the law of real property, that does not owe its debt of gratitude to the men who developed and established the Roman Law. We turn, however, to this great work of ecodifi- cation not so much as a great juristic achievement struck off at a given time from the brain and purposes of men, but as a means by which there were preserved107 for posterity the masterpieces of Roman jurispru- dence. And its value to the world can be measured by its value to the civilizations that it has helped to es- tablish, to nurture and to maintan. There are many interesting analogies, Mr. Toast- master, if I have not trespassed already longer than | should upon your time and patience, to be drawn between these two great historic achievements, be- tween the restatement, simplification, and clarification of this great system of jurisprudence and the work that confronts us here in America today. Their work, of course, was vastly simpler even in an age that had not yet accomplished the mechanical achievement of the printing press, it was vastly simpler than that which confronts us. Even with all our advantages of the printing press and other mechanical devices, we have a vastly greater problem than was accomplished under Justinian or by the people of France. And yet, as Mr. Root has said, if we do not strive to do some- thing we will be lost in ‘‘the wilderness of single in- stances,’’ in the jungle of conflicting and confusing decisions. We may not accomplish all, but if we do not strive we will not accomplish anything. At this time there is to my mind something more that we can gather from these historical analogies. We can not only gather inspiration and direction as to methods by which we shall carry on our work, but we can find an emphasis on the value and impor- tance to civilization of scientific, harmonious systems of law. At a time when domestic safety and interna- tional peace are in a condition of disorganization as the result of the awful destruction of the World War, the idea and the principles of law are more important than they have ever been before. We have seen how, atter the darkness and the chaos ot the Middle Ages, Europe turned to the principles of the Roman Law as a basis upon which to rebuild the structure108 of civilization. Today, when European civilization is still struggling for its very existence and the future is still dark and uncertain, we can look forward hope- fully to the application in the affairs of nations of those principles of law which we hope to effectually apply among men. And the importance of a harmoni- ous, definite and certain system of jurisprudence can not be overestimated in its value and importance to the world today. Let us strive, Mr. Chairman, to give to posterity as great a gift as the past has given to us. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I am sure we are all greatly indebted to Governor Hadley for this remarkable summary of the history of Roman law and the Code of Napoleon. Nothing could be more appropriate to this occasion than the description of the building up and restatement of that law. There was one thing he did not mention, and about the only thing I knew, and that was that Au- gustus in his reforms with respect to law found him- self a litle out of tune with existing conditions because it was found there, as it was by Lowell in his ‘‘ Bigelow Papers,’’? you remember the line, “But John C. Robinson he Says they don’t know everything Down in Judee.’’ Augustus tried to introduce again and put in force the Cincian Law. Now you don’t know what the Cincian Law is, do you? But it ought to be called the anti-Cincian Law, because it was the law which for- bade lawyers to take fees. Augustus certainly, as ap- plied to the profession, was an idealist. And his suc- cessors, ‘iberius and the rest, gave up, and that was109 the reason for the real development of the profession that followed in the next three centuries, We are living in an age and under eonditions where it seems to me that the profession should rouse itself to be heard not only in the organization of re- form of the law, but in the maintenance and preserva- tion and protection of the institutions of civil liberty, which the members of the profession of the law so clearly understand. Time was when the bar of the country exercised a much greater influence in society than they now do, and in this present juncture of in- stability it is necessary that the bar should reassert itself, and these organizations of lawyers and _ this stirring up of the profession to united expression are most important in retaining for use those institutions that have been handed down to us by our fathers, and that have made this country a place that we are proud to live in. One of those great organizations, the greatest in point of numbers, the most certain to continue and enlarge its influence, is The American Bar Associa- tion, and we have here tonight a gentleman who not only has charmed the crowned heads of Europe, but is also the present and living President of the Amer- ican Bar Association. ing Mr. John W. Davis, and in askine him to respond fo that Asso- ciation and for the country. I have great pleasure in present Mr. Joun W. Davis: Mr. Chief Justice, ladies and gentlemen: The only revenge I have on Governor Hadley for his ref- erence to crowned heads and his pre-emption of the territory which I hoped to occupy, is the presumption which his reference leaves me, that I knew all he was going to say before he said it. I prefer to leave the presumption undisturbed.110 You, Mr. Chief Justice, by the tenor of your in- troduction, have relieved me of an additional uneasi- ness. I was not at all sure just what the character was in which I was supposed to appear on this ocea- sion, whether it was as a member of our newly-formed American Institute of Law or whether it was in my official capacity as President of the American Bar As- sociation; whether I was retained to defend the In- stitute against the Association or the Association against the Institute, or as a sort of amicus cure to endeavor to ereate harmonious relations between the two. I.say, ‘‘endeavor to create’’ advisedly, because | observe in the very able and comprehensive report that formed the basis of our deliberations ‘today the studious efforts of its framers to divoree the Ameri- ean Institute of Law, even in its nascent stages, from The American Bar Association. The relationship which they propose to set up would remind one only of the often told and classic story of Mr. Justice Bowen and his retort to his colleagues when they were drafting an humble petition to the queen and inserted by way of preface, the words, ‘‘conscious as we are of our own infirmities,’’ Justice Bowen suggested that it would be better and more correct to insert, ‘‘conscious as we are of each other’s infirmities,’’ and I rather gather that the framers of this plan were greatly im- pressed with that point of view. But even before you spoke, Mr. Chief Justice, it was my purpose to solve the difficulty by sticking to the older brief upon which a retainer had already been had. In the few words I ask your patience to utter, | want to say just something of the relationship which is to exist between the American Institute of Law and The American Bar Association. As I sat today, listening to the debate and111 speeches and reports, it seemed to me that the nec- essary prerequisites for the success of the ereat undertaking we were about to initiate were five in number, and that to all of these, with perhaps one exception, The American Bar Association was pre- pared to make a contribution, either tangible or in- tangible. The first of the five lies at the base of every hu- man enterprise, for the necessary prerequisite, the sme qua non, the beginning point of the American Institute of Law is men. This corporate Justinian that we have just created must find its Tribonian, this Napoleon must have his Cambaceres whieh again I pronounce with the hesitation evidenced by Governor Hadley—and, Mr. Chief Justice, I beg to assure you with all due modesty that The American Bar Associa- tion is prepared to supply the need. We have the Tribonian, we have the Papinian, we have parallels for all the reformers of past or present time. The next prerequisite, and how heartened and cheered we were by Mr. Root’s reassurance on that subject, is the equally indispensable factor of money. Now there it is not given to me to be so encouraging. Not that The American Bar Association is lacking in funds, but those who have witnessed, as many here have, the spectable of its committeemen and its chair- man pleading with the stern Alvanian Cerberus who guards its coffers for some share of its treasures, will advise the American Institute that at least in the interest of speed they should not rely upon that source of supply. And the third of my list is the element of pa- tience. This is not work, which all of us know, to be done ina day. This restatement to which we look for- ward with such hope and anticipation is not to spring like Minerva, full-armed from the brain of Jove.ite There will be no growth over night, it must be the re- sult of many toilsome days and when produced it may well be expected to smell of the lamp. It is pre-emi- nently a case, it seems to me, where the phrase im- mortalized some years ago by Governor Pennypacker of Pennsylvania may well be applied for in this case if in no other, ‘‘Celerity should be econtempered with cunctation.’’? And there, Mr. Chief Justice, 1 beg to as- sure you the American Bar Association has much of example to offer for the imitation of the Institute, for have we not for forty-seven long years been improy- ine the profession, restating and improving the law, and yet we do not regard the task as by any means completed. Then, it goes without saying that this labor must be performed with adequate skill. If law which is un- written or badly written is to become well-written law, no skill that any reach of our profession possesses 1S too great for that exacting task. And, speaking again for The American Bar Association, modesty forbids me to say what I think we have to offer in that par- ticular. When the work is finished, then what? There are but three ways, as it seems to me, in which it is to be eiven force and power. The first of those has been related to us by Governor Hadley in his most interest- ing and scholarly recital. There is a method that was open, as Mr. Root told us today, to Justinian and Na- poleon and Frederick the Great and to the codifiers of other lands and other times, the method of legisla- tion. None of us here, I faney, certainly none of those who are familiar with Congress or the forty-eight leg- islatures of our States, anticipate that this labor shall. be committed to their charge. Nor, indeed, would it accord with the spirit of the people from which we spring that that should be done. It is not in the na-113 ture and the genius of those who have produced from century to century the common law of England that it should be cast in the hard and rigid form of statu- tory enactment. There is a second method which I have not heard mentioned today of which there springs to my mind at least one historic illustration. There was an oc- casion on which it was applied, if tradition be well founded, with a very considerable degree of success, and that is the method of elimination. When Omar burned all the books that accorded with the Koran because they were useless and all those that disagreed with it because they were pernicious, he made the Koran the prevailing law of the times, and there have been ribald persons who have suggested that that method might be applied with reason to a large part of our existing legal literature. The third method, and the only one which seems appropriate to the occasion, is the method of sympa- thetic usage. This work when produced, all of us agree, must be such as to commend itself to the considerate judgment of the craftsmen of the profession. When it issues from the hands of the scientist the ultimate test should be the craftsman’s test when_he lays his rule upon it and takes it in his hands to ply his daily task, and that test is to be applied by the lawyers who compose The American Bar Association. It will be sympathetically applied, as I believe, and loyally ap- plied if the work when done meets with their approval. Now to say that the eighteen thousand lawyers who compose The American Bar Association out of the one hundred and twenty-two thousand lawyers of all ranks and grades in the United States, arrogate to themselves the right to speak for all their unasso- clated brethren would be an arrogance indeed. But it eo is my confident belef, Mr. Chief Justice, that before114 this work has issued from the hands of its makers the ighteen thousand who now compose that body will have grown to many times that number. For myself I look forward with confident hope and expectation to the day when every lawyer in the ( United States who is worthy of the profession that he serves will be enrolled in the organized ranks of the associations that compose it. (Applause.) And I] eo further: I look to see the day when the associations of our profession the country OVE. loeal, state, topi- eal and national, will imitate the example of those who set this great federated republic on its feet, and with- out abandoning their local character and their indi- vidual composition and organization, will federate themselves into one grand organized profession for the service of their countrymen and of mankind. It is to that body that the American Institute of Law in the last analysis must submit its labors and it is by and through that body that they will gain vigor, vitality and strength. As I stand here by your side tonight, Mr. Chief Justice, my mind goes back not many years since to a eathering singularly like the present. You sat where you sit tonight, presiding over the annual dinner of The American Bar Association. And there spoke from this platform the great man whom you succeeded in the great office you now hold, and with whose hfe your own has been so strangely intermingled. Who of us present on that oeeasion ean ever foreget the ma- jestie picture which he painted when in his deep organ- like voice he drew the stars and bars across the stars and stripes and declared that their super-im- posed pattern was an eternal barrier against all the enemies of the Republi and of the liberty of Amer- icans. That great man, in discussing the exact labors upon which we have been engaged today, once saidLtd in my presence that it was impossible for him to conceive the system of law which we were adminis- tering in America could endure the burden vear by vear of the lterature of precedents that was piling upon it. He went on to say, and of course he spoke with a background ot the Louisiana Code in his mind—he said that for himself he could see but one escape and that was a classification and a restatement if not, indeed, an express codification of the law. Then, pausing in his walk as was his wont when he wanted particularly to emphasize some thought that was in his mind, he stood still and said. ‘‘Were IT a young man | think I should abandon my present post to lead a erusade looking to that end.”’ It needs not his great name to confirm the con- viction we entertain of the importance and value of the work this day begun. Those who stand in his place will carry forward the ideas to which he gave utterance. Turning in my memory again to the scene that | have mentioned, I reeall, as a good many of you do, the words with which he again renewed his own per sonal oath, and the oath of our profession, to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I ean think, gentlemen, of no way in which this is to be more ade- quately performed, no obligation which is more sternly imposed upon the oath-bound followers of the law than to serve in the manner we have outlined today that law upon which the Constitution was itself erected. THe Cuter JUSTICE: | am sure we have all enjoyed this meeting. We will carry away deep impressions of that which we have heard and the knowledge that it is the beginning’ of great good work.116 I felicitate Mr, William Draper Lewis on the re- sults of this meeting. I say Godspeed to my fellow supreme justices on their way home to resume their authority where there are not so many of them. I pronounce this meeting adjourned.Eki CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE INSTITUTE. Tuts is to Crertiry that we, whose names are here- unto subseribed, citizens of the United States, a ma- jority of whom are citizens of the District of Colum] pla, have associated ourselves toget her, pursuant to pro- visions of Chapter XVIII. Sub-Chapter III, of the Code of Law for the District of Columbia, March 3, 1901, 4 approved and Acts of Congress amendatory thereto, under the corporate name of Tur American Law Instir UTE, The term for which the society is organized is per- petual. The particular business and objects of the society are educational, and are to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and earry on scholarly and scientific legal work. The number of managers of the society, who shall be called councilors, shall for the first year of its ex- istence be twenty-one. Wiryess our hands this twenty-third day of Feb- ruery, A. D., 1923. Wo. H. Tart, (Seal) CHARLES EK}. HuaHsEs, (Seal) Ex1Hv Root, (Seal) CONSTANTINE J. SmytuH, (Seal) Waurter I. McCoy, (Seal) Peyton GorDON, (Seal) GEORGE ‘I’. WEITZEL (Seal)COLUMBIA, SS. DISTRICT OF I. Howard S. LeRoy, a notary public in and for the District of Columbia do hereby certify that William H. Taft, Charles E. Hughes, Elihu Root, Constantine J. Smyth, Walter I. McCoy, Peyton “Gordon, and George T. Weitzel, parties to a certain Certificate of Incorporation, bearing date on the twenty-third day of February, 1923, and hereto annexed, personally ap- peared before me in said District, the said Wilham H. Taft. Charles E. Hughes, Elihu Root, Constantine J. Smyth, Walter I. MeCoy, Peyton Gordon, and George T. Weitzel, being personally well known to me to be the persons who executed the said Certificate of In- corporation, and acknowledged the same to be their act and deed for the purposes therein named. Given under my hand and notarial seal this twenty-third day of February, A. D., 1923. Howarp 8S. Leroy, (Seal) Notary Public. My commission as notary public expires on the eighteenth day of June, 1926.119 BY-LAWS OF THE INSTITUTE. 1. The name of the organization shal] be Tur AMERICAN Law InstITuUTE. 2. The objects of the Institute shall be to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work. do. [he members of the Institute shall be (a) Those whose names appear on the roll of the meeting held in Washington, D. C., on February 234, 1923, at the invitation of the Committee on the Estab- lishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improve- ment of the Law, (b) Members of the Council, (c) Any other person elected by the Couneil or by the Institute, (d) During the continuance of their respective offices : (1) The Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices of the Su- preme Court of the United States. (2) The senior judge of each United States Cireuit Court of Appeals. (3) The Attorney General and the Soleitor General of the United States. (4) The Chief Justice of the Court of Ap- peals of the District of Columbia. (5) The chief justice of the highest court of each state. (6) The President of The American Bar As- sociation and the members of its Ex- ecutive Committee.120 (7) The president of each state bar associa- tion. (8) The dean of each school belonging to the Association of American Law Schools. (9) The President of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. (10) The President of the American Branch of the International Law Association. (11) The President of the American Judica- ture Society. (12) The President of the National Con- ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. (13) The President of the American Society of International Law. 4. There shall be an annual meeting of members, which shall be called by the Council. Special meetings of members may be called by the Council on three weeks’ notice, and shall be called on the written re- quest of fifty members. All meetings shall be held in Washington, D. C., except when the Council specifically designates another place of meeting. Iifty members shall form a quorum. 5. The affairs of the Institute shall be managed by a Council of twenty-one members. The Couneil shall have power to make rules not inconsistent with these by-laws, and shall also have power to increase the number of the members of the Council until the next annual meeting of the Institute, provided that the total membership shall at no time exceed thirty-three. The members of the Institute at the organization meet- ing shall elect twenty-one persons members of the Council. At the first meeting of the Council the mem- bers shall by lot divide themselves into three classes, seven to serve until December 31st, 1926, seven to121 serve until December 31st, 1929, and seven to serve until December 31st, 1932. A vacaney not due to the expiration of a term may be filled by the Council until the next annual meeting of the members of the In- stitute, and shall then be filled for the unexpired term by the members of the Institute. 6. The Council may appoint an Executive Com- mittee and may delegate to it such powers as the Coun- cil may deem proper. 7. Any legal work done under the direction of the Institute, before being published as an official publica- tion of the Institute, shall be approved by a meeting of members. 8. The officers shall be a president, a vice-presi- dent, a secretary and a treasurer, each having the powers and duties usually incident to his office. They shall be elected by the Council and shall hold office for s . i m1} one year or until their successors are elected. he Council may elect other officers and prescribe their duties. 9. No member of the Council shall while remaining a member receive any compensation from the Institute. 10. These by-laws may be amended by the affirm- ative vote of a majority of members voting on the question at an annual meeting.MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTI- TUE. APR: 3, 1923. ANNETTE ABBOTT ADAMS, Law Enforcement Committee, Ameri- can Bar Association, Merchants’ Exchange Building, San Fran- CISCO, fe al. HOMER ALBERS, Dean, Boston University School of Law burton Place, Boston, Mass. , I1 Ash- JOHN WESTON ALLEN, Tremont Building, Boston, Mass. ROBERT C. ALSTON, 1208 Citizens & Southern Bank Building, \tlanta, Ga. GEORGE E. ALTER, to12 Park Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. CHARLES B. AMES, American National Bank Building, Oklahoma City, Okla DAVID WERNER AMRAM, Professor of Law, University of Penn- sylvania Law School, 1610 Real Estate Trust Building, Philadel- phia, Pa. GEORGE W. ANDERSON, Judge, United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals, First Circuit, Federal Building, Boston, Mass. HENRY W. ANDERSON, 913 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, Va. JOHN C. A'INDERSON, Chief Justice; Supreme Cotirt of Alabama, Demopolis, Ala. ALEXANDER ARMSTRONG, Attorney General of Maryland, 633 Title Building, Baltimore, Md. WILLIAM H. ARNOLD, Chairman, Arkansas Commissioners on Uni- form State Laws, Texarkana, Ark. FRANK E. ATWOOD, Jefferson City, Mo. LOUIS L. BABCOCK, 810 Fidelity Building, Buffalo, N. Y. GEORGE A. BACON, 31 Elm Street, Springfield, Mass. HOLLIS R. BAILEY, Chairman, Massachusetts Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 84 State Street, Boston, Mass. NEWTON D. BAKER, 308 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, O. RALPH J. BAKER, Telegraph Building, Harrisburg, Pa. JOHN HAMPTON BARNES, 1421 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. OTTO RAYMOND BARNETT, 1520 Monadnock Block, Chicago, JESSE W. BARRETT, Attorney General of Missouri, Jefferson City, HENRY M. BATES, Dean, University of Michigan Law School; Michigan Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Ann Arbor, Mich. JOSEPH H. BEALE, Professor of Law, Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Mass. MIDDLETON BEAMAN, Legislative Drafting Bureau, House of Rep- resentatives, 297 House Office Building, Washington, D. C.123 JAMES M. BECK, Solicitor General of the United States. 1624 Twenty- first Street, Washington, D. C. GEORGE E. BEERS, Chairman, Connecticut Commissioners on Uni- for State Laws; Member, General Council, American Bar Asso- ciation, 42 Church Street, New Haven. Conn ABRAHAM M. BEITLER, 5501 Wayne Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa. ALFRED B. BENEDICT, Dean, University of Cincinnati College of Law, 504 St. Paul Building, Cincinnati, O. | JAY R. BENTON, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Belmont. Mass. FRANK BERGEN, 8&0 Park Place, Newark, N. e FRANICIS B. BIDDLE, 1601 Morris Building, Philadelphia, Pa. HENRY WOLF BIKLE, Professor of Law, University of Pennsyl- vania Law School, Broad Street Station, Philadelphia, Pa. ROBERT W, BINGHAM, Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky GEORGE G. BOGERT, Dean, Cornell University College of Law: New York Commissioner on Uniform State Laws. [thaca: N.Y. FRANCIS H. BOHLEN, Professor of Law, 1 niversity of Pennsyl- vania Law School, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. HORACE L. BOMAR, Spartansburg, S. C CARROLL T. BOND, Court House, Baltimore, Md. LEE BOND, United States Commissioner, Leavenworth, Kans. PERCY N. BOOTH, 903 Lincoln Bank Building, Louisville, Ky. EDWIN M. BORCHARD), Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn CHARLES A. BOSTON, 24 Broad Street, New York City, N. Y. CLARENCE M. BOTTS, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Mexico; Chairman, New Mexico Commissioners on Uniforin State Laws, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ANDREW HUNTER BOYD, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of Maryland, Cumberland, Md. FRANCIS B. BRACKEN, 934 Land Title Building, Philadelphia, Pa. WILLIAM C. BREED, 32 Liberty Street; New York City JOHN P. BRISCOE, Member, General Council, American Bar Associ- ation, Prince Frederick, Calvert County, Md. WILLIAM BROSMITH, Member, Executive Committee, American Bar Association, 700 Main Street, Hartford, Conn. CALVIN BROWN, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn. HENRY P. BROWN, 1535 Land Title Building, Philadelphia, Pa. JEFFERSON B. BROWNE, Justice, Supreme Court of Florida, Talla- hassee, Fla. ANDREW A. BRUCE, Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law, 31 W. Lake Street, Chicago, Ill. HELM BRUCE, Louisville, Ky.124 EDWARD J. BRUNDAGE, Attorney General of Illinois, Supreme Court Building, Springfield, Il. GEORGE BRYAN, American Bank Building, Richmond, Va. P. TAYLOR BRYAN, 1605 Pierce Building, St. Louis, Mo. JOSEPH BUFFINGTON, Senior Judge, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Pittsburgh, Pa. EDWARD P. BUFORD, President, Virginia State Bar Association, Lawrenceville, Va. WILLIAM MARSHALL BULLITT, Member, General Council, \merican Bar Association, 1711 Inter-Southern Building, Louis- ville, Ky. R. A. BURCH, Justice, Supreme Court of Kansas, Topeka, Kans. CHARLES K. BURDICK, Professor of Law, Cornell University Col- lege of Law, Ithaca, N. Y. WILLIAM H. BURGES, Member, General Council, American Bar Association, El Paso, Tex. GEORGE W. BURLEIGH, 27 Cedar Street, New York City. CHARLES C. BURLINGHAM, 27 William Street, New York City. STILES W. BURR, 32 Merchants National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minn. CHARLES HENRY BUTLER, 1535 I Street, Washington, D. C. GEORGE C. BUTTE, Dean-elect. University of Texas, Law School, Austin, Tex. JAMES BYRNE, President, Association of the Bar of City of New York, 37 Wall Street, New-York City. FE. H. CABANISS, Member, General Council, American Bar tion, Jefferson County Bank Building, Birmingham, Ala. FREDERICK P. CABOT, Judge, Boston Juvenile Court, Street, Boston, Mass. BRUCE A. CAMPBELL, President, Illinois State Bar Murphy Building, East St. Louis, Ill. Associa- 53 State Association, BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO, Judge, Court of Appeals of the State of New York, 36 West Forty-fourth Street. New York City. CHARLES H. CAREY, President. Oregon State Bar Association, 1410 Yeon, Building, Portland, Ore. J. McF. CARPENTER, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, 424 North Negley Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. HAMPTON L. CARSON, 1524 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. J. W. CHALLIS, Atchison, Kan. J. MORRILL CHAMBERLIN! Member, General Council, American Bar Association, Southern Building, Washington, D. C. JOSEPH P. CHAMBERLAIN. Legislative Drafting Department, Co- lumbia University School of Law, New York City.CHARLES E. CLARK, Associate Professor of Law, Yale Univer- sity School of Law, 877 Orange Street. New Haven, Conn. PREDERIC L. CLARK, 1520 Real Estate a Trust Building, Philadel- pita, a: JOHN KIRKLAND CLARK, 61 Broadway, New York City. WALTER CLARK, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of North ( ~ ; Carolina, Raleigh, N. C. WALTER C. CLEPHANE Chairman, District of Columbia Commis- sioners on Uniform State Laws, 1512 H Street. N. W.. VW ashing- ton, D. C. FRANK M. CLEVENGER, Ohio Commissioner on Uniform State Laws; Member, General Council, American Bar Association, Wil- mington, Ohio. ASHLEY COCKRILL, Little Rock. Ark. JULIUS HENRY COHEN, 111 Broadway, New York City. ALLEN D. COLE, Vice-President. Kentucky State Bar Association, Maysville, Ky. RICHARD B. COMST\ YCK, President, Rhode Island State Bar Association, io W eybossett Street, Providence, R, it MARTIN CONBOY, 27 Pine Street, New York City. WALTER W. COOK, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. LAWRENCE COOPER, Huntsville, Ala. ARTHUR L. CORBIN, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. COE I. CRAWFORD, 783 Dakota Avenue, Huron, S. D, GEORGE E. CROTHERS, 1201 Chronicle Building, San Francisco, Gal. O. K. CUSHING, San Francisco, Cal. FRANK C. DAILEY, 1352 Lemoke Annex, Indianapolis, Ind. WILLIAM S. DALZELL, 450 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. HENRY P. DART, 1023 Canal Bank Building, Niew Orleans, La. A. A. DAVIDSON, Palace Building, Tulsa, Okla. GEORGE N. DAVIS, 812 Delaware Trust Building, Wilmington, Del. HENRY E. DAVIS, Wilkins Building, Washington, D. C. JOHN W. DAVIS, President, American Bar Association, 15 Broad Street, New York City. WILLIAM A. DAY, 120 Broadway, New York City. LAWRENCE DeEGRAFF, Judge, Supreme Court of Iowa, 4920 Country Club Boulevard, Des Moines, Ia.126 WILLIAM H. DE LACY, Associate Professor of Law, Catholic Uni- versity of America School of Law, Washington, D. C. TACOB M. DICKINSON, Chicago, Ill. FRANK F. DINSMORE, President, Cincinnati Bar Association, Carew Building, Cincinnati, O. WALTER F. DODD, 105 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IIL. ROBERT G. DODGE, 53 State Street, Boston, Mass. FORREST C. DONNELL, Boatmen’s Bank Building, St. Louis, Mo. THOMAS H,. DOYLE, Presiding Judge, Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, Okla. HENRY S. DRINKER, Jr., 750 Bullitt Building, Philadelphia, Pa. H. G. DUFOUR Hibernia Building,, New Orleans, La. CHARLES E. DUNBAR, Jr. United Fruit Building, New Orleans, La. WALTER F. DUNMORE, Dean, Western Reserve University, Frank- lin T. Backus Law School, Cleveland, O. WILLIAM N. DYKMAN, President, New York State Bar Associa- tion, 177 Montague Street, Brooklyn, N. Y. CHARLES BURKE ELLIOTT, 810 New York Life Building, Minne- apolis, Minn. WADE H. ELLIS, Southern Building, Washington, D. C. VICTOR ELTING, Home Insurance Building, Chicago, III. SAMUEL NESBITT EVINS, 1319 Atlanta Trust Company Build- ing, Atlanta, Ga. LOUIS B. EWBANK, Judge, Supreme Court of Indiana, 320 State House, Indianapolis, Ind. CHARLES W. FARNHAM, Guardian Life Building, St. Paul, Minn. CHARLES J. FAULKNER, Martinsburg, W. Va. MERTON L. FERSON, Dean, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D. C. JOHN H. FERTIG, Assistant Director, Pennsylvania Legislative Ref- erence Bureau, Harrisburg, Pa. WALTER L. FISHER, 134 South La Salle Street, Chicago, III. HERBERT FITZPATRICK, Huntington, W. Va. SIMON FLEISCHMANN, Buffalo, N. Y. JOHN D. FLEMING, Dean, University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder, Colo. JAMES A. FOLEY, Surrogate of New York, Surrogate’s Court, Hall of Records, New York City. RUFUS E. FOSTER, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District yf Louisiana; Dean, Tulane University of Louisiana Col- lege of Law, New Orleans, La,127 EDWARD J. FOX, 336 Reeder Street, Easton, P EVERETT FRASER, Dean. Minneapolis, Minn. ERNST FREUND, Professor of Law, University of Chicago ] School, Chicago, Ill, JOHN H. FRY, 520 Equitable Building THOMAS HOVEY GAGE. President, Massachusetts State Bar As- sociation, Worcester, Mass. PAUL H. GAITHER, Greensburg, P EUGENE B. GARY, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South Carolina, Greenville No. 23, Abbeville, S. C. T. F. GARVER, Columbian Building, Topeka, Kan FREDERICK GELLER, 22 Exchange Place, New BEN J. GIBSON, Attorney General of Moines, Ia. S. PRICE GILBERT. Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia; Member, General Council, American Bar Association, Atlant: CLARENCE N. GOODWIN, 1230 Tribune Building, Chicago, Ill. WELLS GOODYKOONTZ, Williamson, W. Va. ARMISTEAD C. GORDON, 7 Law Building, Staunton, Va. PEYTON GORDON, United States Attorney, District of Washington, D. C. WILLIAM W. GRANT, JRr., 732 Equitable Building, Denver, Colo. FREDERICK GREEN, Professor of Law, University of Illinois Col- lege of Law, 805 West Green Street. Urbana, IIl. THEODORE F. GREEN. Hospital Trust Building, Providence, R. I. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY. 2114 Bancroft Place, Washington, = F. BARRON GRIER, 918 Main Street. Greenwood, S. C. MOSES H. GROSSMAN, 115 Broadway, New York City. WILLIAM D. GUTHRIE. 37 Wall Street, New York City. HERBERT S. HADLEY, Professor of Law, School of Law, Boulder, Colo. JOHN F. HAGER, 311 Sixteenth Street. Ashland, Ky. BENJAMIN A. HAGOOD, 28 Broad Street. Charleston, S. C, LEDYARD P. HALE, Canton, St. Lawrence | ounty, N. Y. WILLIAM BROWNE HALE 140 South Dearborn Street, Il. JAMES PARKER HALL. De an, University of Chicago Law School. a. University of Minnesota Law School, La W “ I Jenver, Ce 1c . d. York City. lowa, State House, Des A a Columbia, University of. Colorado Chicago, 1308 East Fifty-eighth Stre¢ C. Chicago, 11. LEARNED HAND, Judge, United States ] istrict Court, Southern District of New York, Old Postoffice Building, New York City.128 CLINTON M. HARBISON, 812 Security Trust Company Building, Lexington, Ky. WILLIAM M. HARGEST, President Judge, Twelfth District; Penn- sylvania Commissoner on Uniform State Laws, Harrisburg, Pa. HENRY D. HARLAN, 9 West Biddle Street, Baltimore, Md. JAMES H. HARKLESS, Missouri Commissioner on Uniform State Laws: Member, General Council, American Bar Association, 1000 Grand Avenue Temple, Kansas City, Mo. CHARLES F. HARLEY, Title Building, Baltimore, Md. HERBERT HARLEY, Secretary, American Judicature Society, 31 West Lake Street, Chicago, IIl. ALBERT J. HARNO, Dean, University of Illinois College of Law, Urbana, Ill. GEORGE B. HARRIS, President, Ohio State Bar Association, 1102 Engineers Building, Cleveland Ohio. R. H. HAWKINS, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 1o1r Chamber of Commerce, Pittsburgh, Pa. ROLAND G. HEISLER, 750 Bullitt Building, Philadelphia, Pa. CHARLES M. HEPBURN, Dean, Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, Ind. HARRISON HEWITT, 121 Church Street, New Haven, Conn. JOHN HINKLEY, Maryland Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, 215 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Md. HAROLD HIRSCH, Candler Building, Atlanta, Ga. FRANK H. HISCOCK, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals of New York, Syracuse, N. Y. ROBERT LOUIS HOGUET, 51 Chambers Street, New York City. A. HOLL! NGSWORTH, 6 Association Building, Keokuk, Ia. CHARLES M. HOUGH, Judge, United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals, Second Circuit, U. 5S. Court and P. O. Building, New Work City. CHARLES McH. HOWARD, 1409 Continental Building, Baltimore, Md. ALFRED HUGER, Peoples Building, Charleston, =: CHARLES E. HUGHES, State Department, Washington, D. C. JOHN D. HUMPHRIES, Judge, Superior Court, County Court House, Atlanta, Ga. GEORGE R. HUNT, Lexington, Ky. WILLIAM H. HUNT, Judge, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, U. S. Courts, San Francisco, Cal. HENRY F. HURLBURT, 53 State Street, Boston, Mass. ARTHUR E. HUTCHINSON, 732 Commercial Trust Building, Philadelphia, Pa.129 CHARLES V. IMLAY, 1416 F Street, Washington, D. C. FRANK IRVINE, 209 East State Street, Ithaca, N. Y. HELEN E. JAMISON, President, Women’s Bar Association, 2902 Carlton Avenue, N. E., Washington, D. C. THOMAS A. JENCKES, Chairman, Rhode Island Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; Member, General Council, American Bar Association, 901 Turks Head Building, Providence, R. I. CHARLES L. JEWETT, New Albany, Ind. MELVIN M. JOHNSON, 89 State Street, Boston, Mass. H. C. JONES, Dean, State University of Iowa College of Law, Iowa City. Ia. MARCUS A. KAVANAGH, Court House, Chicago, IIl. JOHN B. KEEBLE, Dean, Vanderbilt University Law School, Fourth and First National Bank Building, Nashville, Tenn. EDWIN R. KEEDY, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, Pa. ROY D. KEEHN, to South La Salle Street, Chicago, III. CHARLES A. KEIGWIN, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, 1775 California Street, Washington, D. C. JOSEPH I, KELLY, Judge, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Bristol, Va. W. THOMAS KEMP, Secretary, American Bar Association, 901 Maryland Trust Building, Baltimore, Md. WARNICK J. KERNAN, Devereux Block, Utica, N. Y. ALEX. C. KING, Judge, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Cuir- cuit, 328 Post Office Building, Atlanta, Ga. ELMER KING, Morristown, N. J. WILLIAM B. KING, 728 Seventeenth Street, Washington, D. C. HOWARD THAYER KINGSBURY, 2 Rector Street, New York City. WILLIAM C. KINKEAD, Member, General Council, American Bar Association, 414 Hynds Building, Cheyenne, Wyo. SAMUEL H. KINISLEY, President, Colorado State Bar Association, Colorado Springs, Colo. DANIEL N. KIRBY, o18 Security Building, St. Louis, Mo. HARRY S. KNIGHT, Sunbury, Pa. ALBERT KOCOUREK, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, 31 West Lake Street, Chicago, Ill. MERRITT LANE, Prudential Building, Newark, N. J. ROBERT LANSING, 8 Jackson Place, Washington, D. c.. SYLVAN HAYES LAUCHHEIMER, 111 N. Charles Street, Balti- more, Md.130 ALEXANDER: R. LAWTON, Box 327, Savannah, Ga. ELMER O. LEATHERWOOD, 268 House Office Building, W ashing- ton: D..G. PAUL W. LER. Fort Collins, Colo. R. C. LEFFINGWELL, 52 William Street, New York City. CHARLES B. LETTON, Judge, Supreme Court of Nebraska. 1910 E Street, Lincoln, Neb. SHIPPEN LEWIS, 732 Commercial Trust Building, Philadelphia, Pa. WILLIAM DRAPER LEWIS, Professor of Law, University of Penn- sylvania Law School, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa, CLARENCE A. LIGHTNER, 1604 Dime Bank Building, Detroit, Mich. W. M. LILE, Dean, University of Virginia Department of Law, Charlottesville, Va. R. W. LINDABURY, 736 Broad Street, Newark, N. J. MEYER LISSNER, U. S. Shipping Board, Washington, D. C. CHARLES D. LOCKWOOD, Stamford, Conn. ERNEST G. LORENZEN, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. ROBERT H. LOVETT, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. NATHAN WILLIAM MacCHESNEY, President, National Confer- ence of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 30 North La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill. W. A. MacCORKLE, Charleston, W. Va: JULIAN W. MACK, Judge, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Woolworth Building, New York City. H. B. MACKOY, Lexington Pike, Covington, Ky. JOSEPH WARREN MADDEN. Dean. West Virginia University Col- lege of Law, Morgantown, W. Va. GUY W. MALLON, Union Central Building, Cincinnati, O. FREDERICK W. MANSFIELD, 18 Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. 1S Tremont Street, Boston, Mass. JAMES E. E. MARKLEY, Mason City, Ia. LOUIS MARSHALL, 120 Broadway, New York City. CARRINGTON T. MARSHALL, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of OSCAR A. MARDEN, Justice, District Court of Southern Norfolk, Ohio, Columbus, O. CLARENCE E. MARTIN. Martinsburg, W. Va. JOSIAH MARVEL, President, Delaware State Bar Association: Mem- ber, General Council. American Bar \ssociation, Du Pont Build- ing, Wilmington, Del.13] WILLIAM BURDETTE MATTHEWS, Clerk of the Court of Ap- peal of West Virginia, 1501 Quarrier Street, Charleston, W. Va. A. G. McALISTER, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona, Phoenix, Ariz. JAMES P. McBAINE, Dean, University of Missouri School of Law; Chairman, Missouri Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Columbia, Mo. C. M. M. McCABE, 111 Wallace Avenue, Crawfordsville, Ind. WALTER I. McCOY, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of District of Columbia, United States Court House, Washington, D. C. EDWARD J. McCUTCHEN, Merchants’ Exchange Building, San Francisco, Cal. MALCOLM McDERMOTT, Dean, University of Tennessee College of Law, Knoxville, Tenn. J. E. McDONALD, South Carolina Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Winnsboro, S. C. FRANK C. McGIRR, President, Pennsylvania State Bar Association, 919 Frick Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. EDWARD J. McGUIRE, 51 Chambers Street, New York, N- \¥- DOUGLAS McKAY, Liberty Bank Building, Columbia, 5. C. CHARLES L. McKEEHAN, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. HOMER H. McKEEHAN, Guardian Trust Building, Cleveland, O. COLIN P. McKINNEY, Justice, Supreme Court of Tennessee, Nash- ville, Tenn. PETER J. McLOUGHLIN, Dean, Catholic University of America School of Law, Washington, D. C. ORRIN K. McMURRAY, Professor of Law, University of California, School of Jurisprudence, Boalt Hall, Berkeley, Cal. FLOYD R. MECHEM, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Ill. WILLIAM E. MIKELL, Dean, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 3400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. JOHN G. MILBURN, 54 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. WILLIAM C. MILLER, Peoples Office Building, Charleston, s. WILLIAM N. MILLER, Judge, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Charleston, W. Va. WADE MILLIS, Chairman, Michigan Commissioners on Uniform State Laws: Member, General Council, American Bar Associa- tion, 1401 Ford Building, Detroit, Mich. AMES McC. MITCHELL, 1330 Marine Trust Building, Buffalo, N. Y. D. MOCQUOT, Paducah, Ky. cy eyJULIEN C. MONNET, Dean, University of Oklahoma School of Law, Norman, Okla. ROBERT G. MONROE, 26 Liberty Street, New York City. JOHN R. MONTGOMERY, Vice-President, Illinois State Bar Asso- ciation, 959 The Rookery, Chicago, III. JOSEPH B. MOORE, Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan, State Capitol Building, Lansing, Mich. CHARLES W. MOORES, 1300 Fletcher Trust Building, Indianapolis, Ind. ADELBERT MOOT, 302 Erie County Savings Bank Building, Buffalo, NY: VICTOR MORAWETZ, 37 Wall Street, New York, N. Y. EDMUND M. MORGAN, Professor of Law. Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. ROLAND S. MORRIS, Land Title Building, Philadelphia, Pa. CHARLES J. MORROW, Chairman, Florida Commissioners on Uni- form State Laws, Citizens Bank Building, Tampa, Fla. ROBERT von MOSCHZISKER, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 358 City Hall, Philadelphia, Pa. WILLIAM W. MOSS, Turks Head Building, Providence, R. I. GEORGE WELWOOD MURRAY, 37 Wall Street, New York. N. Y. BERNARD J. MYERS, Lancaster, Pa PICKENS NEAGLE, President, Federal Bar Association, Navy De- partment, Washington, D. C. FRANK K. NEBEKER, Mills Building, Washington, D. C WILLIAM S. NELSON, Columbia, S. C. SAMUEL J. NICHOLLS, Spartansburg, S. C DELANCEY NICOLL, Vice-President, New York State Bar Associa- tion, 61 Broadway, New York City. CHARLES M. NIEZER, First National Bank, Fort W ayne, Ind. ALFRED S. NILES, Equitable Building, Baltimore, Md. BENRY C. NILES. York Pz. HARRY D. NIMS, 17 East Forty-second Street, New York City. T. G. NORRIS, Member, General Council American Bar Association, Prescott, Ariz. GEORGE R. NUTTER, 161 Devonshire Street, Boston, Mass. HORACE S. OAKLEY, The Rookery, Chicago, Ill. JOHN LORD O’BRIAN, 505 Iroquois Building, Buffalo, N. Y. JOHN E. O’BRIEN, 36 West Forty-fourth Street, New York City. Ly J. O'DONNELL . Colorado Commissioner on Uniform State Laws: Member, General Council, American Bar Association, Denver, Colo.133 T. SCOTT OFFUTT, Chief Judge, Third Judicial Circuit of Mary- land, Associate Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals, Towson, Md. HERMAN OLIPHANT, Professor of Law. Columbia University School of Law, 400 West One Hundred and Eighteenth Street, New York City. HARRY OLSON, Chief Justice, the Chicago Municipal Court, 917 City Hall, Chicago, Ill. MARY O’TOOLE, Judge, Municipal Court, Washington, D. C. ALFRED R. PAGE, Justice, Supreme Court of New York, 27 Madi- son Avenue, New York City. EDWIN B. PARKER, Houston, Tex. EMMETT N. PARKER, Judge, Supreme Court of Washington, Olympia, Wash. THOMAS I. PARKINSON, Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law, New York City. HERBERT PARSONS, 52 William Street, New York City. JOHN BARTON PAYNE, 1601 I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER, Land Title Building, Philadelphia, Pai ‘| LEROY PERCY, Mississippi Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Greenville, Miss. THOMAS NELSON PERKINS, 60 State Street, Boston, Mass. W. H. H. PIATT, Missouri Commissioner on Uniform State Laws. 715 Commerce Building, Kansas City, Mo. CHARLES W. PIERSON, 120 Broadway, New York, N. Y. EDGAR ALLAN POE, 1604 Park Avenue, Baltimore, Md. SAMUEL C. POLLEY, Judge, Supreme Court of South Dakota, Pierre, S. D. FRANK M. PORTER, Dean, University of Southern California Col- lege of Law, 402 Tajo Building, Los Angeles, Cal. CUTHBERT W. POUND, Judge, Court of Appeals of New York, Court House, Lockport, N. Y. ROSCOE POUND, Dean, Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Mass. WILSON M. POWELL, 7 Wall Street, New York City ROBERT R. PRENTIS, Judge, Supreme Court of Appeals; Member, General Council, American Bar Association, Richmond, Va. J. HARRY PRICE, Empire Building, Knoxville, Tenn. mn. © PURDY. Sumter. S. C. HENRY E. RANDALL, 50 West Third Street, St. Paul, Munn. WILLIAM L. RANSOM, 120 Broadway, New York City. ALBERT RATHBONE, 80 Broadway, New York City.134 FRANCIS RAWLE, 1004 West End Trust Building, Philadelphia, Pa: ALFRED Z. REED, 522 Fifth Avenue, New York City. DAVID A, REED, 747 Union Arcade, Pittsburgh, Pa. TAMES B. REYNOLDS, President, American Institute of Criminal ; Law and Criminology, North Haven, Conn. H. S. RICHARDS, Dean, University of Wisconsin Law School, Mad- ison, Wis. TOHN T. RICHARDS, Member, Executive Committee, American Bar Association, 72 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill. T. S. RILEY, President, West Virginia State Bar Association, W heel- ing, W. Va. W. D. RITER Assistant Attorney General of United States, Salt Lake City, Utah. OWEN J. ROBERTS, 1421 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. ADOLPH J. RODENBECK, Judge, Supreme Court of New York, Rochester, N. Y. HENRY WADE ROGERS, Senior Judge, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Old Post Office Building, New York City. ELIHU ROOT, 31 Nassau Street, ‘New York City. ELIHU ROOT, Jr.; 31 Nassau Street, New York City. ABRAM J. ROSE, 115 Broadway, New York City. GEORGE B. ROSE, Little Rock, Ark. ARTHUR P. RUGG, Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- chusetts, Court House, Worcester, Mass. J. C. RUPENTHALL, Judge, Twenty-third Judicial District, Court House, Russell, Kan. RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga. ARTHUR H. RYALL, Michigan Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, 206 First National Bank Building, Escanaba, Mich. JOSEPH M. SANDERS, Law and Commerce Building, Bluefield, Wi: Va. R. E. L. SANER, Texas Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, 1412 Magnolia Building, Dallas, Tex. EDWARD T. SANFORD, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of United States, 2400 Sixteenth Street, Washington, D. C. WILLIAM I. SCHAFFER, Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pa. WILLIAM A. SCHNADER, delphia, Pa. 701 Commercial Trust Building, Phila- /Lao AUSTIN W. SCOTT, Professor of School, Cambridge, Mass. JAMES BROWN SCOTT, American Society of International Law, 2 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C. CORDENIO A. SEVERANCE, Member, Executive Committee, Ameri- can Bar Association; Minnesota Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Merchants’ National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minn. WILLIAM F. SHEA, President, Wisconsin State Bar Association, 518 W. Second Street, Ashland, Wis. j THOMAS W. SHELTON, Member, Executive Committee. American Bar Association, National Bank of Commerce Building, Norfolk, Va. CARL SHERMAN, Attorney General of New York. 840 Warren Street, Albany, N. Y. ROBERT P. SHICK, Member, General Council, American Bar As- sociation, 1107 Liberty Building, Philadelphia, Pa. JOHN K. SHIELDS, Tate, Tenn GEORGE SHIRAS, Jr., Ormond Beach. Fla. FREDERICK L. SIDDONS, Justice, Supreme Court of District of Columbia, 1914 Biltmore Street, Washington, D. C. HARRY UPSON SIMS, Alabama Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Iolo First National Bank Building, Birmingham, Ala. HERBERT A. SMITH, Professor of Law, McGill University Faculty of Law, 427 Elm Avenue, Westmont, Province of Quebec, Canada. Law, Harvard University Law HORACE H. SMITH, Utah Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, Salt Lake City, Utah. REGINALD HEBER SMITH, 60 State Street, Boston, Mass. ROBERT L. SMITH, Member. General Council, American Bar As- sociation, Albemarle, N. C. WALTER GEORGE SMITH, Pennsylvania Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, 711 Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Pa. WILLIAM W. SMITHERS, 402 Finance Building, Philadelphia, Pa. CONSTANTINE J. SMYTH, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals of Dis- trict of Columbia, Washington, D. C. HENRY G. SNYDER, 614 Terminal Building, Oklahoma City, Okla. HECTOR G. SPAULDING, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D. C. ALBERT M. SPEAR, Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, Court House, Augusta, Me. WALKER B. SPENCER, 321 St. Charles Street, New Orleans, La. ANDREW SQUIRE, Leader News Building, Cleveland, O.136 WILLIAM H. STAAKE, Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Philadel- phia; Chairman, Pennsylvania Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 648 City Hall, Philadelphia, Pa. WENDELL P. STAFFORD, Judge, Supreme Court of District of t, Washington, D. C. ALEXANDER W. STEPHENS, Judge, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Altanta, Ga. Columbia, 1725 Lamont Street, HORACE STERN, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, 1524 North Six- teenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. HENRY L. STIMSON, 32 Liberty Street, New York City. F. H. STINCHFIELD, 900 Metropolitan Life Building, Minneapolis, Minn. HARLEY H. STIPP, 1013 Bankers Trust Building, Des Moines, Ia. HENRY STOCKBRIDGE, Chairman, Maryland Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 11 N. Calhoun Street, Baltimore, Md. J. T. STOKELY, 8or First National Bank Building, Birmingham, Ala. RICHARD C. STOLL, Judge, Circuit Court of Twenty-second Judicial District; President, Kentucky State Bar Association, Lexington, Ky. HARLAN F. STONE, Dean, Columbia University School of Law, New York City. MOORFIELD STOREY, 735 Exchange Building, Boston, Mass. CHARLES STRAUSS, President, New York County Lawyers As- sociation, 141 Broadway, New York City CHARLES H. STRONG, Secretary, Association Bar of the City of New York, 27 Cedar Street, ‘New York City. W. L. STURDEVANT, Missouri Commissioner on Uniform State National Bank Building, St. Louis, Mo. Laws, 1229 Central MARK A. SULLIVAN, New Jersey Commissioner on Uniform State Laws, 15 Exchange Place, Jersey City, N. J. ARTHUR E. SUTHERLAND, Rochester Savings Bank Building, Rochester, N. Y GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of United States, 2029 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. THOMAS W. SWAN, Dean, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. FRANCIS J. SWAYZE, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of New Jersey, 765 High Street, Newark, N. J. JOHN W. SWEENEY, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Supreme Court House, Providence, R. I. WILLIAM H. SWEETLAND, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, Supreme Court House, Providence, R. I.137 | RB. EF. SWISHER, L. and Y. National Bank Building, Waterloo, Ia. HENRY W. TAFT, 40 Wall. Street. New York City. ROBERT TAFT, 824 Dixie Terminal, Cincinnati, O. WILLIAM H. TAFT, Chief Justice of United States, 2241 Wyoming Avenue, Washington, D. C. JOSEPH N. TEAL, 179 St. Clair Street, Portland, Ore. JAMES H. TELLER, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Colorado, | Denver, Colo. | GEORGE H. TERRIBERRY, Orleans, La. 526 Whitney-Central Building, New C. S. THOMAS, First National Bank Building, Denver. Colo. FLOYD E. THOMPSON, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Illinois, 301 Central Trust Building, Rock Island, IIl. GUY A. THOMPSON, Liberty Central Trust Building, St. Louis, Mo. WILLIAM G. THOMPSON, 1134 Tremont Building, Boston, Mass. EDWARD 8S. THURSTON, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn. FRANCIS B, TIFFANY, 685 Endicott Building, St. Paul, Minn. WILLIAM R. TILLINGHAST, Providence, R. I. M. HAMPTON TODD, 133 S. Twelfth Street, Philadelphia, Pa. EDGAR BRONSON TOLMAN, Editor-in-Chief, American Bar Asso- ciation Journal, 1612 First National Bank Building, Chicago, IIl. HORACE M. TOWNER, Executive Mansion, San Juan, Porto Rico. JOHN C. TOWNES, Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Tex. GEORGE A. TRUDE, 139 N. Clark Street, Chicago, II. ROBERT LEE TULLIS, Dean, Louisiana State University Law School; Chairman, Louisiana Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 103 Lake Park, Baton Rouge, La. ROBERT B. TUNSTALL, Citizens Bank Building, Norfolk, Va. ARTHUR J. TUTTLE, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 303 Federal Building, Detroit, Mich. E. MARVIN UNDERWOOD, 1715 Candler Building, Atlanta, Ga WILLIAM R. VANCE, Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law, New Haven, Conn, JAMES W. VANDERVORT, Member, General Council of American : Bar Association, Parkersburg, W. Va. JOSIAH A. VAN ORSDEL, Judge, Court of Appeals of District of Columbia, Washington, D. C. WILLIAM C. VAN VLECK, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D. C.9O 158 L. R. VARSER, President, North Carolina State Bar Association, 209 E. Fifth Street, Lumberton, N. C. VAN VECHTEN VEEDER, 27 Williams Street, New York City. FREDERICK E. WADHAMS, Treasurer, American Bar Association, 78 Chapel Street, Albany, N. Y. WILLIAM CUSHING WAIT, Justice, Superior Court of Massa- chusetts, 174 Forest Street, Medford, Mass. MORRISON R. WAITE, 97 Carew Building, Cincinnati, O. FRANK R. WALKER, Dean, Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse, N. Y. EUGENE WAMBAUGH, Professor of Law, Harvard University School of Law, 22 Berkeley Street, Cambridge, Mass. BENTLEY W. WARREN, 30 State Street, Boston, Mass. CHARLES WARREN, 1527 Eighteenth Street, Washington, D. C. BENJAMIN F. WASHER, Chairman, Kentucky Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, M. E. Taylor Building, Louisville, Ky. W. H. WASHINGTON, Chairman, Tennessee Commissioners on Uni- form State Laws; Member, General Council American Bar Asso- ciation, Steger Building, Nashville, Tenn. EDGAR WATKINS, 403 Atlanta Trust Building, Atlanta, Ga. GEORGE D. WATROUS, 261 Bradley Street, New Haven, Conn. GEORGE T. WEITZEL, 308 Mills Building, Washington, D. C. FRANK WELLS, Member, General Council, American Bar Associa- tion, Oklahoma City, Okla. EVERETT P. WHEELER, 150 E. Seventy-second Street, New York City. GEORGE W. WHEELER, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Connecti- cut, Bridgeport, Conn. JAMES E. WHEELER, 42 Church Street, New Haven Conn. JOSEPH WHELESS, 120 Broadway, New: York City. EDWARD J. WHITE, Railway Exchange Building, St. Louis, Mo. CHARLES S. WHITMAN, Member, General Council, American Bar Association, 120 Broadway, New York City. GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, 4o Wall Street, New York City. PHILIP J. WICKSER, 6 Buffalo Insurance Building, Buffalo, N. Y. JOHN H. WIGMORE, Dean, Northwestern University School of Law, 31 West Lake Street. Chicago, III. FRED L. WILLIAMS, 1007 Boatmens Bank Building, St. Louis, Mo. SAMUEL C. WILLIAMS, Dean. Kmory University, Lamar School f Law, 29 Oakdale Road, Atlanta, Ga. TYRRELL WILLIAMS, Professor of Law, Washington University school of Law, St. Louis, Mo.139 G. N. WILLIAMSON, Dakota National Bank, Aberdeen, S. D. HUGH E. WILLIS, Professor of Law. Indiana University Law, Bloomington, Ind. SAMUEL WILLISTON, Professor of Law. Harvard University I School; Massachusets Commissioner on Uniform State Cambridge, Mass. CLARENCE R. WILSON, Wilkins Building, 1512 H Street. Wash- mieton. 1). C. ROBERT H. WINN, Mt. Sterling, Ky. CHARLES E. WINTER, 220 Oil Exchange Building, Casper, Wyo. JOHN M. WOOLSEY, 27 William Street, New York City. GEORGE B. YOUNG, Vermont Commissioner on Uniform State Laws. Montpelier, Vt. GEORGE ZASBRISKIE, 49 Wall Street, New York City. School of ~aW Laws, ae SSS ees SS : } e ‘ny nn nn ee ee ae Sa aes el chan H ni j nL it { SoaPil ee ated a ios schesaaaetethalatanearsthaiidabdiale hime aeiealetstalenebadiaaies etaadt seengery ooo A 5 5} | i 4 H | | ! pt A 0 | | ! } if | } i H ] } \ i \ ithe stamped DOOK al ed books the (For det: “7 1,Oanl { t H 1 ! the ee ee eee eeSSS ar Seer ere Se ee ee } 1 i il | J