The President: Does the gentleman withdraw his motion to lay Mr. Sutro's amendment on the table? John B. Baskin, of Kentucky: I do not. The President: The Chair will explain Mr. Sutro's motion. The original motion was that the Association should adopt the resolution presented at the last meeting, but leaving out the preamble. Mr. Sutro moved an amendment to the effect that instead of appointing a committee of five, as that motion had called for, the resolution should be recommitted to the committee making this report. Theodore Sutro, of New York: That is so far correct. Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia: There will be a new committee, I suppose. The President: No; the committee is a standing committee. The personnel may change. The point is now made that the motion to lay the amendment on the table will carry with it the principal question and the Chair now so rules. The motion of Mr. Sutro was then laid on the table, and the original resolution as presented to the Association in 1910, excluding the preamble, was thereupon adopted. Henry D. Estabrook, of New York, then submitted the printed report of the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure, and stated the purport and substance thereof. On motion, duly seconded, the report was received and adopted. (See the Report in the Appendix, page SS7.) The President: The next committee to report is the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, of which Professor Rogers is Chairman. Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut: The Association has referred no matter to the Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. The committee. has entered upon some independent inquiries not yet concluded. It does not desire to report at this time. If the committee is continued during the next year, it will conclude its inquiries and will be prepared to submit a comprehensive report at the next annual meeting. Francis B. James, of Ohio, submitted the printed report of the Committee on Commercial Law and stated the purport and substance thereof. On motion, duly seconded, the report was received and its recommendations adopted. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 390.) Charles Noble Gregory, of District of Columbia, submitted the printed report of the Committee on International Law, and stated the purport and substance thereof. Ernest T. Florance, of Louisiana: I move that the committee be permitted to file its report and have the same printed in the proceedings. The motion was seconded and carried. (See the Report in the Appendix, page 396.) Frederick W. Lehmann, of Missouri: There was referred to the Committee on Grievances at its last meeting, held in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the petition of one James R. Watts making certain charges with which the name of Joseph H. Choate, of New York, was connected. The same man who introduced the petition in Chattanooga asked leave upon the next day to withdraw it, and his request. was also referred to the committee. The committee now reports that it has considered the matter and has reached a unanimous conclusion-with the exception of Mr. Peck, whose state of health did not permit him to take part in the consideration. It is as follows: The Committee on Grievances, to which was referred the petition of James R. Watts, together with the request afterwards made to withdraw the same, respectfully report that after a careful and deliberate consideration of the petition the committee unanimously recommend that the request to withdraw be granted. The committee has reached this conclusion the more readily for the reason that as against Mr. Choate the petition is on its face utterly frivolous and devoid of merit, and, by its terms, demonstrates that its introduction was unjustifiable. The committee, therefore, recommends the passage of the following resolution: "Resolved, That the report of the Grievance Committee in the matter of the petition of James R. Watts be and it is hereby approved, and that leave to withdraw such petition be and it is hereby granted; "Resolved, That the said petition, together with all references thereto, be stricken from the files and from the records of this Association." The report is signed by J. M. Dickinson, Charles F. Libby, Alton B. Parker, and myself. I move its adoption. Stephen H. Allen, of Kansas: I second the motion. The report and the resolution contained in it were unanimously adopted. The Assistant Secretary: The printed lists of members and delegates in attendance are on the Secretary's table ready for distribution. The General Council listed in the first edition is the former General Council; the second edition will contain the names of the present General Council. There may be some errors in the names as printed because of difficulty in reading the signatures on the register. The Association then adjourned until 10 o-clock A. M. Wednesday, August 30, 1911. SECOND DAY. Wednesday, August 30, 1911, 10 A. M. The President called the meeting to order. The Secretary: Attention is called to the fact that the second list of members in attendance at this meeting will be ready for distribution at 11 o'clock this morning. All members are requested to verify the list carefully that corrections may be made. All nominations for Vice-Presidents and members of Local Councils should be handed in as promptly as possible. The New General Council will hold an important meeting at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in this building, room No. 16. The sessions of the Section of Legal Education will be held in room 23 of the Walker Building, No. 525 Boylston Street, the first session beginning at 3 o'clock this afternoon. The President: I have the honor to introduce a distinguished ex-Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who has retired from the Bench, but has employed a part of his leisure in studying the new Judicial Act passed by the last Congress. He has graciously consented to read to us a paper on that legislation. I have the honor to present Hon. Henry Billings Brown, of Michigan. Henry B. Brown, of Michigan, then delivered his address. (See the Appendix, page 339.) The President: Is there any discussion upon the subject matter of the paper read by Mr. Justice Brown? R. Wayne Parker, of New Jersey: I desire to express what I believe cannot be done by resolution-the thanks which every member of this Association feels to the eminent gentleman who has just addressed us. His speech has, perhaps, gone far beyond anything that was in the subject, yet it has not gone beyond that because the constitu tion of the courts of the United States involves essentially within that topic the administration of all the laws, and the Constitution of the United States brings those topics home to us as absolutely a part of the subject discussed. The bill revising and codifying the laws with reference to the courts and the judiciary of the United States was introduced and carried by the Committee on the Revision of the Laws, of which I was not personally a member, having been a member of the Committee on the Judiciary which had for its object the consideration also of the judiciary of the United States. My own committee was in absolute sympathy with every provision of the Act except with one. We were not agreed that it was well to take away from the Justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of the Circuit Courts, the power of original jurisdiction vested in them from the adoption of the Constitution. For that reason the House of Representatives adopted an amendment proposed by Mr. Parsons, of New York, and strongly supported by all the members of the committee of which I had the honor to be one-an amendment that each of the Supreme Court Justices and the Circuit judges shall, in every district within their circuit, have the power and authority of a district judge. The idea of that amendment was that instead of 95 separate courts, one in each district presided over by a single judge so that you could run about and find your particular judge, as it is sometimes alleged to be done in certain cases of patents or injunctions, there should at least remain only nine circuits, in each of which the district is a part of the jurisdiction of the court. Thus if you had a case involving twenty or thirty million dollars, you would possibly find the judges of the Circuit Court, or perhaps even the Circuit justice himself, would attend of his or their own motion, without being asked, and see that justice be done in the beginning, and that errors were not committed which would make the trial a sham. That principle is embodied in the bill, where it says that no injunction shall be granted against the execution of a state law unless granted by three judges. It is better that the court themselves shall determine on the importance of any particular case than |