from Louisiana, had resigned from the Bench of the United States District Court because he could not live upon the salary. The President: I suppose the gentleman from New York refers to Judge Eugene B. Sanders. William B. Hornblower, of New York: Yes; one of the ablest men of the New Orleans Bar. William G. Choate, of New York City, resigned because he could not live on the salary of a federal district judge. Those are two instances within my knowledge. I also understand that Judge Duell, of New York, resigned for the same reason. We appeared in great force before the Congressional committees and we made what we considered very satisfactory and convincing arguments. We thought that many of the committee were favorably impressed. Mr. R. Wayne Parker, of New Jersey, was Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary before whom the argument was made. I forget just what report the committee made, but the subject came up before Congress, and was debated at great length-not in connection with the judiciary bill or the bill to revise the Judiciary Act of the United States, but on the special bill relating to salaries; and Congress disapproved of the proposition to increase the salaries of the District and Circuit. Court judges. To that extent the committee is justified in its report. It is not technically justified in stating that the matter was passed upon by the passage of the general Judiciary Act, but that the matter was passed upon by Congress, or by the House of Representatives, after a debate on the precise question of increase of salaries. I do not so much criticize the report of the committee as I criticize the spirit of the report. I also agree with the suggestion, that as there is a new Congress there is an opportunity to raise the question again; and for one I am so strongly convinced of the crying injustice of the present system of compensation that from now until my dying day, I shall insist with all the vigor that I possess upon the removal of that. injustice. It may be that in some districts the federal judges do receive fair compensation, but on the whole, I contend that it is not true. Certainly in great cities like New York and Chicago the compensation of the United States Judges is grossly inadequate as compared with that of state judges. I am strongly in favor of having a motion carried which shall commit the Association to the increase. Edward Q. Keasbey, of New Jersey: The resolution of the committee says that such action is not desirable. I think this Association should not go on record as expressing that idea. If the recommendation is to be passed at all, certainly it should state no more than that it is not desirable at the present time. This Association is not bound by the fact that Congress did not take further action. The argument before the committee came with the strongest force from the men in states where the judges of the federal courts were already getting larger salaries; yet the members of the Bar from those states. declare that it is a disgrace to the country that the federal judges should receive the small salaries they are getting. Nathaniel W. Ladd, of Massachusetts: The government of the country is not yet turned over to the American Bar Association. We ought all to feel that we wish to preserve the influence of the Association, especially with the members of Congress with whom the government of the country rests, and we hope, will continue to rest. This committee is right in saying that when Congress has acted so recently on the question and has considered it in all phases, further action in the matter is not desirable. We should rest satisfied until the action of Congress has had a reasonable trial. When we express ourselves in convention, we want our resolution to have weight. I do not agree that the report contemplates that the matter should never be acted upon in the future. I think it leaves the door entirely open. Emmett O'Neal, of Alabama: I cannot subscribe to the proposition that this Association will lose influence with the American people by differing with Congress on a matter of public policy. The Congress are only the servants of the people; this Association constitutes a very important part of the people. The question is whether Congress has acted justly and wisely. Every member of the Association knows that the present salaries of the District and Circuit judges are utterly inadequate. The question is, what is our judgment on that proposition. Do we think they are sufficient? If we do, we should adopt the recommendation of the committee. If we believe the contrary, and that the committee fails to voice. the sentiment of the American Bar Association, we ought to have the courage so to declare. The proposition of the report is that no further action be taken. I differ with the committee. I believe, and I think every lawyer here knows, that the present salaries of the District judges of the United States are a reflection upon this great republic; upon the dignity and honor of the profession. I believe the time has come when we should express our opinion. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether Congress has acted on the question, but if Congress has acted unwisely, I do not think we can lose the respect of the American people by expressing our convictions. I move to lay the substitute resolution of Mr. Ketcham on the table. Clyde C. Dawson, of Colorado: I second the motion. Frank J. Hogan, of District of Columbia: I rise for information. Does carrying this motion to lay the substitute on the table carry with it the main motion for which it was a substitute? The President: Yes, sir. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: I beg to differ with the Chair. A motion was made, that the original resolution referred to the committee, excepting the preamble, be adopted, and then an amendment was made that the subject matter of the resolution be referred back to the committee, whereupon Mr. Ketcham moved as a substitute that the recommendation of the committee be approved. The President: A motion was made that the original resolution referred tc the committee excepting the preamble be adopted by the Association. Mr. Sutro, of New York, then offered an amendment that the subject matter of the resolution be referred back to the committee. Mr. Ketcham then moved as a substitute that the report of the committee be accepted and approved. Now Governor O'Neal, of Alabama, moves to lay Mr. Ketcham's substitute on the table; that question will now be put. The substitute was then laid on the table. Frank J. Hogan, of District of Columbia: I ask what the status of the main question now is? The Chair was wrong before. The status now is, the substitute having been laid on the table, that the question recurs to the original motion. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York: My motion was to adopt the original resolution without the preamble. Theodore Sutro, of New York: And I moved to amend that the resolution be referred back to the committee. The President: The Chair so understands it. Theodore Sutro, of New York, then read his amended resolution as follows: "Resolved, By this Association that the resolution referring to the salaries of the federal judiciary be referred back to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform with the request that they investigate the matter further and report at the next meeting of the Association." Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: The committee has not the slightest objection to the recommitment. The committee was instructed to consider a resolution to the effect that a committee of five be appointed to formulate and propose to Congress a plan for an increase in the salaries of the judges. The committee understood that the subject matter was discussed by Congress. No technical question is now raised. We understood, and it is a fact, that this question was fully considered by the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, of which Mr. R. Wayne Parker was Chairman. That committee reported against it, and the final judgment of Congress, as pronounced, found expression in this bill. Your committee did not think it wise to say to Congress that the American Bar Association comes to you now, and announce: Here is a committee of five who are formulating this legislation, and we propose that you shall pass it. Congress could very well reply: "We have just considered this matter, and have decided the case." The question is neither whether Congress was right, nor whether the salaries should be increased. It is: Did your committee do right, having due regard to the dignity of the Association and to the practicability of the work? That is the question. John B. Baskin, of Kentucky: I move that Mr. Sutro's amendment be laid on the table. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York: If that is done, will it carry my original resolution? The President: Yes, sir. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York: Then I ask Mr. Baskin if he will not withdraw his motion. Ernest T. Florance, of Louisiana: The whole trouble comes from the fact that Mr. Sutro has called his resolution a motion to amend. It is not amend. It is a motion to recommit. The President: It is a motion to amend another motion. motion to |