Congressmen seemed to think that since we could get judges to accept office at poor salaries we ought to be content; that since there is a scramble for the office at the present salary in some sections, therefore we should continue to disgrace ourselves by continuing the poor pay.

Nothing requires more prompt action by the Association than this subject. I do not favor the increase for the sake of the judges. It would be undignified. I speak for the country and the Bar. The laborer is worthy of his hire. It is a disgrace that men who could earn from twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollars a year in practice, should serve the country for six thousand dollars. I am not particular as to the exact phraseology of the resolution.

Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

As an amendment I move the adoption of the last recommendation of the committee. It is:

"In view of the action taken by Congress on this subject, in the passage of a bill entitled 'An Act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary, approved March 3, 1911, and to become effective January 1, 1912,' your committee is of opinion that no further action in this matter is desirable." Julius Henry Cohen, of New York:

I ask the gentleman to call attention to that provision of the Judiciary Act which covers this subject?

Wm. A. Ketcham, of Indiana:

I will if the gentleman will wait. I want now to say to this body of lawyers that the idea that judges serve for a miserable pittance, who could earn in practice twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollars a year, is the veriest nonsense. There is not one of them who would be on the federal Bench for a minute at a salary of $6000, if he could earn twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollars a year in practice.

The American Bar Association might to advantage permit Congress to formulate and pass laws to govern the administration of justice in the United States. When the Congress of the United States has so done we ought not to take the position of a scolding

woman and find fault. It is idle to say that Congress did not know what it was doing when it passed the recent Act. It considered the salaries before fixing them and it considered the rates paid other judges.

So far as this Association is concerned Congress must be presumed to have acted, whether wisely or unwisely, at any rate intelligently. They do not need the instruction of the American Bar Association as to judicial salaries, and I doubt very seriously whether if they get an instruction from this Association, they would feel in honor bound to follow it.

Frederick Taylor, of New York:

I should like to know what Congress in fact did in respect to the salaries.

Merrill Moores, of Indiana:

Congress fixed every salary by that Act.

Henry H. Glassie, of District of Columbia:

It is a fact that Congress considered the subject of increase of salaries of judges, because the subject was before Congress in the form of an amendment to the Moon bill. Nothing appears in the Act to show whether or not the salaries of district judges were considered; nevertheless, they were, in fact, considered, and no increase was made in them.

Theodore Sutro, of New York:

I am not familiar with the legislation. There is no question but that the federal judiciary, as compared with the state judiciary, notably in New York, is underpaid and always has been. I propose this amendment to the resolution:

"Resolved, By this Association that its President do appoint a committee of five, who shall formulate and propose legislation for the proper compensation of the federal judiciary, and report to this Association at the next meeting."

Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

That is substantially the resolution upon which your committee has passed. I do not suppose there is any objection to paying fair salaries. The committee knew that this very ques

tion had been considered by Congress, and to go before that same Congress would not be in accordance with the dignified attitude of the Association.

Theodore Sutro, of New York:

I do not think I have been quite understood by the Chairman of the committee. This resolution reads that the President shall appoint a committee of five to formulate and propose to the Congress of the United States legislation for the proper compensation of the judiciary. My amendment was simply that the committee to be so appointed shall investigate the subject and report at the next meeting of the Association. No harm can be done; it may be productive of a great deal of good.

Frederick Taylor, of New York:

I will second the amendment of Mr. Sutro.

The President:

The amendment is then before the House.

Eugene E. Prussing, of Illinois:

There were before Congress two or three bills to increase the salaries of each class of judges. When the Moon bill was on its passage, an attempt was made to amend it by putting in the salaries. The original bill was not reached and the substitutes were turned down. One judge, whom I knew, resigned after he was seventy years of age. For over thirty years he had received $5000 a year. In the first year thereafter, he received retainers, as counsel merely, of $25,000. Another Circuit Court judge, whom I knew, refused a retainer which he was told he might write at five figures, and kept his place on the Bench, because he had a contract with the people of the United States to serve during good behavior for a salary which Congress might fix. It is the duty of the country to see that such men are not made the losers. They ought to be paid living salaries in the communities in which they reside. The Circuit Court judge in my city receives $7000; our state judges receive $10,000.

Chapin Brown, of District of Columbia:

I am opposed to the recommendation of the committee. It reads:

"In view of the action taken by Congress on the subject in the passage of a bill entitled 'An Act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary, approved March 3, 1911, and to become effective January 1, 1912,' your committee is of opinion that no further action in this matter is desirable."

I am not in favor of putting this Association on record on a false premise. The question was not, in fact, considered by the Moon bill. It was not considered by the Act approved March 3, 1911. The recommendation would put the Association in the position of declaring that the matter was considered and turned down, when that bill related, in fact, to an entirely different branch of the judiciary and concerned particularly the procedure. Incidentally, there was tacked on an increase in the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court, but the increase of the salaries of the federal judiciary at large was not considered in the bill. It was considered by the committee on the judiciary an entirely different committee from that which had the bill in charge. Gentlemen from different parts of the country were heard by the committee which recommended a substantial increase in the salaries of all the judges, but the favorable report was not reached by Congress. If we now pass the recommendation we say that the matter was considered when the bill was under discussion. For another reason I do not favor the resolution. Your committee's recommendation is that it is "of opinion that no further action in this matter is desirable." Why? Because it was considered in the bill approved March 3, 1911. If Congress had turned down-which it has not done-the recommendation of the Association, I should still be in favor of the resolution. Because the legislative branch of the government has turned down a recommendation of the Association, it does not follow conclusively that the subject recommended is not desirable. I speak particularly of the District of Columbia. Two organizations in the District of Columbia, representing all of its citizens, 330,000

in number-the Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce -unanimously recommended that the salaries of the judiciary in the District of Columbia be increased 100 per cent. When you consider that the Chief Justice of England receives $50,000 a year, and that the judges of the highest court in New York City receive $17,500 a year, the salary paid to the judges of the federal courts is picayune. We ought not to turn down the previous recommendation of the Association that the salaries of the federal judges should be increased. Therefore, I second the substitute or amendment, that the resolution referred to the committee, without the preamble, be adopted, so that a committee may be appointed still further to knock at the doors of Congress asking them to formulate and pass an Act for proper increase in the salaries.

J. Bernard Ferber, of Massachusetts:

This matter has not been considered by the present Congress. It was considered by another Congress than that now in session. Whether it was considered by the previous Congress, or not, it might well be that it would be considered favorably by this Congress, which in one of its branches is even of a different political complexion than that of the last Congress.

I favor the resolution referred to the committee as against the report.

Theodore Sutro, of New York:

I want to change my motion in one respect, that is, instead of appointing a special committee, that the subject be referred to the present committee with request to consider the question further and report at the next meeting.

William B. Hornblower, of New York:

Permit me to say that as Chairman of a committee of the New York State Bar Association, I attended in Washington last winter the meetings of the Congressional committees on this subject. A large delegation was present from various states of the union, including representative men from Georgia and from Louisiana. One of the gentlemen who appeared, a gentleman