Thomas Mackenzie, of Maryland:

I move as a substitute for that recommendation, that the resolution on the third degree be adopted instead of the report of the committee. I will read that resolution:

"WHEREAS, The Constitution of the United States in the V Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,' and in the VI that he shall not only be entitled to a public trial by an impartial jury, but shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense'; and

"WHEREAS, The same principles of individual right have been adopted by the various states; and

66

WHEREAS, From the common reports of the examinations of accused persons made by the police departments in many of the municipalities throughout this country, such persons are examined in private, without the assistance of any one present to advise them as to their individual rights; and that from the rigid and often harsh examinations accused persons are in effect compelled to be witnesses against themselves contrary to the true intent of the Constitutional provisions and contrary to all sense of fairness and justice; and

"WHEREAS, This Association believes that such practices should be condemned and the individual rights of accused persons should be protected by a uniform law; therefore,

"Be it Resolved, That it is the sense of this Association that in all criminal prosecutions no confession of the accused should be received in evidence, unless it is affirmatively shown at the trial that it was made voluntarily, in the presence of a third disinterested person selected by the accused, and not in any way connected with the police department or the prosecuting attorney's office, and after the accused has been informed in the presence of such third party, that while he need not answer interrogatories, nor make a statement, yet if he does the statement would be used against him.

"Resolved, further, That appropriate legislation be recommended to carry into effect such protection to the accused." The President:

Will the Chairman of the committee read the recommendation of the committee in respect to this resolution?

Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

The committee while regretting the existence of such an evil was constrained to report against the adoption of the resolution,

for the reason that the proposition excludes a confession in all criminal prosecutions unless it is shown that it was not only made voluntarily, but in the presence of a third person selected by the accused. The committee believed that the evil of the socalled third degree is local, and not a subject upon which the Association should legislate. They believe that local evils should be corrected at home and by local measures.

Thomas Mackenzie, of Maryland:

I hope that the Association will not adopt the report of the committee in respect to my resolution. Let me say that what led me to offer the resolution was what occurred in the Crippen case. When Crippen was arrested in Canada the first statement made to him by the magistrate was that he need not answer any question, but if he did reply his answers would be used against him. That seemed to me to be very fair, because there have been all through our criminal procedure occasions when persons not convicted of crime, but simply charged with it, have been subjected to examinations bordering closely in their harsh features on the inquisition of the old Spanish kind. If the Canadian practice thus shielded an accused person, I concluded that there must be a reason for it. Upon examination I found that in the 11th and 12th Victoria, there had been passed a statute by the English Parliament, providing that no man accused of crime shall be questioned unless first informed that he need not answer, and that if he does answer his responses may be used against him. Prior to that law, from the time. when the Stuarts were driven from the throne, the courts of England invariably followed a similar rule for the protection of accused persons. They would not receive evidence of a confession unless clearly shown to be voluntary. Until the 11th or 12th Victoria that was the law of practice as made by the rulings of the courts. The new statute did nothing more than the former practice so far as the admission of evidence was concerned. By the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of the different states, no accused person shall be made to give evidence against himself; he is to have a public trial and the advice of counsel.

An accused person is very often made a witness against himself contrary to these constitutional provisions. He is not given a public trial when he is examined before the detectives. He is made, in a private trial, so to speak, without counsel to advise him, to be a witness against himself, and his evidence is used against him. If this Association means what its Constitution declares, that its object is to promote justice, this body should put itself on record as opposed to such an iniquitous practice.

The first part of my resolution does not propose anything except that which is already the law. The other provision is that there shall be some protection thrown around an accused person by requiring a disinterested witness to the fact that the confession was a voluntary one.

The American Bar Association ought to put itself on record as opposed to anything which savors of injustice.

Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

The resolution says in precise language that no confession shall be received in evidence unless it has been formally made in the presence of witnesses-or a disinterested witness-and after the accused person has been advised of his rights in the premises. In other words, if a murderer is caught red handed with a knife in his hand and says, "Yes, I did it; the man did me a grievous wrong and I took the law in my own hands," the resolution prohibits the confession from being offered in evidence, unless the prisoner has been advised that what he says can be used against him. This Association had better say that no confession shall ever be received unless first written down in the presence of a notary and the accused has sworn to its truth. The resolution is a very different proposition from placing the Association on record against the third degree. It is asking us to take the anomalous position that there can be no evidence of admission of guilt unless the party has first called a town meeting, and been advised therein that he has a right to speak or not to speak.

The motion to substitute the resolution for the recommendation was lost. The motion to adopt the first recommendation of

the committee was then carried and the second recommendation of the committee was, thereafter, upon motion, also duly adopted. Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

I move the adoption of the recommendation of the committee on the third proposition, which is to the effect that it is not within the province of this Association to take part in any political discussion on woman suffrage.

William V. Rowe, of New York:

I second the motion.

Alfred Hayes, Jr., of New York:

I move to recommit the proposition to the committee which has not taken a position on the merits of it. The only question is whether the committee is right in saying that it is not a question of discussion proper for this body. If the committee were of opinion that the right of suffrage had been denied on the ground of sex alone, would the committee be warranted in saying that that would not be a proper question to consider? If on the merits this committee were of the opinion that any right were denied upon the arbitrary ground of race or sex not warranted by the distinction, then it would cease to be of such a political character that it would not properly come before a body charged with seeing that discriminations in our laws are based upon rules of justice and right. This body has considered questions of a political character. The question of the recall of judges is a question of the most important political character, because it involves the proposition whether or not the servant is greater than the master; whether judges charged peculiarly with the duty of interpreting constitutional law in instances which depend almost solely upon their political views, can or cannot be recalled by the people.

Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana (interposing):

I interrupt the gentleman on the point of order that we are not now discussing the subject of the recall of judges. A debate on that subject is not now in order.

The President:

The point of order is well taken.

Alfred Hayes, Jr., of New York:

I will confine my remarks to the subject under discussion. The illustration of the recall of judges is germane to the subject because it shows that this Association at this meeting has considered a question of a political nature. A political question may be acted upon by this body if it involves a question of right and justice.

The motion to recommit was lost. The motion to adopt the third recommendation of the committee was then carried.

Charles A. Boston, of New York:

I desire to move as a substitute for the fourth recommendation of the committee that that part of the report be recommitted, it appearing that the committee misapprehended the sense of the resolution.

James D. Andrews, of New York:

I second the motion.

The motion to recommit was carried.

Julius Henry Cohen, of New York:

I move the adoption of the original resolution of Mr. Sumner, appearing in the report of the committee and reading as follows:

"WHEREAS, It is a well-known fact that our federal judiciary receive salaries by no means comporting with the high dignity and importance of their office and their distinguished ability and honor in its administration; and

"WHEREAS, This is a matter of concern to all good citizens of the republic without reference to party or political affiliation; "Resolved, By this Association that its President do appoint a committee of five of its members who shall formulate and propose to the Congress of the United States, legislation for the proper compensation of the federal judiciary and shall ask the support and co-operation of all persons and organizations who can assist in the consummation of the same."

Israel Cowen, of Illinois:

I move as an amendment that the preamble be stricken out. Julius Henry Cowen, of New York:

My recollection is that the Judiciary Act makes no provision for increase in salaries of District or Circuit judges. Some