and willing, must wait and be asked. This cultivates a habit of reserve in professional relations. I found from efforts to increase our membership, that lawyers, in every way an ornament to the profession, had not joined because they had not been invited. They were restrained by a fine sense of delicacy from suggesting their own election. It is a pity that a modicum of the same restraining influence could not be injected into some of those who are rampant for judicial preferment. I know that some members whose opinion I value entertain an idea of exclusiveness, and hold the Association in such esteem that they consider it derogatory to its prestige to solicit membership. The first article of our Constitution declares that our object "shall be to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice, and uniformity of legislation throughout the union, uphold the honor of the profession of the law, and encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the American Bar." How are we to encourage cordial intercourse if we hold ourselves aloof, and do not endeavor to draw into our circle those with whom it would be agreeable to establish cordial relations? How can we put forth the strength of the profession for advancing its aims, if we do not enlist it in our ranks? We can best realize its ideals, by reaching the intelligence and stimulating the activities of those from whom the Bench which administers justice, and the legislature which alone can enact uniform laws are recruited. If they are of us, then, whether they attend our annual meetings or not, they are imbued with the same purposes, instructed by the same teachings, and in close sympathy with all our efforts, and do not need to be appealed to and convinced, but with well-founded convictions, act upon their own initiative in promoting our just endeavors. Much has been accomplished and our record is without a blemish. The Association has brought about a higher standard in legal education and for admission to the Bar, the enactment of uniform laws in many states, has stimulated the formation and activity of Bar Associations in states, judicial districts, counties and towns, and in many other ways not necessary to recapitulate has justified its existence. The results attained would have been realized more speedily, and with

greater facility, if we had evolved all the potentiality which we might have possessed. For years we have deplored in terms of eloquence the lowering of the standard of the profession, and have arraigned with stinging rebuke those who have brought it into disrepute, and even now we have under consideration a code of ethics which has for a long time been an object of our deep solicitude. It is not intended to be exclusive and applicable only to the members of this Associsation. It is for the profession at large. If adopted, we indulge the expectation that it will be accepted not only by the Bar Associations of the several states, but will, at least in substance, be enacted into law by many of the states. How much firmer will be the ground for such hope if we have the co-operation of members of every Bar? The majority of the lawyers of every state are a credit to our profession, and are worthy of our fellowship. If that be not true, then it is a waste of time and energy to consider any system of ethics for their guidance. It is futile to frame canons for professional conduct which do not appeal to the majority of the profession. They are useless alike to the impeccable and the depraved. I stand for broadening our Association and recruiting its membership by active, systematic and constant effort. We should from year to year, as they become eligible, gather into our ranks, the younger members of the Bar, who constitute its hope for the future, that they may develop their professional character under the ideals. that this Association always maintains, partake of the generous intellectual feasts which are spread, and that the Association in all of its endeavors to fulfill its high destiny, may at every time. and place where a contest is to be waged, mobilize a formidable array of earnest and aggressive members, who will give it loyal support.

It is desirable to establish closer relations with the Bar Associations of the several states. This was recommended by Mr. Manderson, Acting President in 1899, and again by him as President in 1900. At present, they are authorized to send delegates to our meetings, but the relationship thus established is purely formal, of a social character, and has, so far as I know, resulted in nothing appreciable. It is a weakness in our organization

that the attendance at the meetings, and upon the sessions, is voluntary upon the part of individual members, and that no sense of obligation or responsibility to others is imposed. On more than one occasion important questions, which would commit the Association on grave matters of doubtful constitutionality, have been brought forward at periods when only a small number of those attending upon the meeting were present. It would seem that prudence would suggest an adequate safeguard against committing the Association, representing as it does, actually a large number of lawyers of America and in the minds of the public generally the American Bar, except upon a more representative vote. If the general idea here suggested shall be regarded as worthy of consideration it would be well to investigate the system adopted by the American Medical Association. It has established direct relations with state associations, which are represented by elected delegates, the number being based upon the ratio of membership in the state societies. This is the governing body. It deals with all of the larger and general problems. The number being limited to 150, opportunity is afforded for full debate without the necessity for tabling propositions under consideration. This system prevents the states near the place of meeting from exercising a controlling influence. The body is thoroughly representative of all the states. Special work of the Association is done in sections. A member of a state association is not ipso facto a member of the national association. He becomes a member by individual connection. All members of the Association are free to attend upon the meetings. The scientific work is divided up and disposed of by sections. Through this organization the Association is in constant and personal relations not only with each state society, but with every member thereof. The result is that it wields a power in the profession, and over the profession, in enforcing a standard of ethics, and in bringing about the enactment of laws promotive of public health, that is incomparably greater than that exercised by it when its organization was somewhat similar to ours. With annual dues of $5.00 it has been able to bear, on account of its large membership, not only the ordinary expenses of the Association, but to employ a secre

tary who devotes his entire time to the work, and publish a journal which is unrivaled in the medical world. The state societies have, under the influence of the national association, taken on new activity, responsibility and dignity. The general plan of the American Medical Association has substantially the same objects in view that we have. It has been thus expressed:

"The three objects of paramount importance to be accomplished by medical organization are: a, the promotion of direct personal and social intercourse between physicians, by which mutual respect, personal friendship and unity of sentiment are greatly promoted; b, the more rapid increase and diffusion of medical knowledge, scientific and practical; and c, the developing, unifying, concentrating and giving efficient practical expression of the sentiments, wishes and policy of the profession, concerning its educational, legal and sanitary welfare and the relations of the latter to the community as a whole."

The results obtained through its change of organization are so satisfactory to its members that they merit at least a careful consideration on our part. If the American Bar Association can have at least one officer devoting his entire time to its work and promoting its interests, and establish a law journal worthy of its great prestige, who can doubt that its influence will be vastly increased and that its great purposes will be more surely and speedily attained? I do not suggest any hasty action, but I earnestly recommend that a committee be appointed to confer and report upon the question at our next meeting.

Whether we pursue old or new methods, we will hold steadfastly to the ideals that have always been cherished. There have been war periods when the demand for service to the country by the individual lawyer, in his capacity of citizen, has been more acute, but never has the American Bar been confronted with a more serious patriotic duty. For a long time, next preceding recent years, judgments of courts, especially those of final resort, were received with the greatest respect. The passions aroused by cases of such political significance as the Chisholm and Dred Scott cases were temporary. They never disturbed the general confidence in the courts, nor provoked a general assault upon them. Throughout the land there was in the minds of the

American people a profound regard for the judicial department of government. If decisions were publicly criticised, the criticism was generally temperate, addressed to the particular questions, and was not of such character as to break down in the minds of the people respect for the judiciary. In various ways in recent times, and from sources too influential with public opinion to be ignored, the very foundations have been assailed upon which the stability of the courts rests. Judicial judgments are not accorded the same reception as formerly. Individual judges should be assailed if they are corrupt, or incompetent. It is no assault upon the institution to attack them for such causes in a proper way. The condition would become unwholesome and intolerable, and the system would decay of itself if this could not be done. While impeachment should not be lightly invoked, yet it is an indispensable safeguard. The impeachment of judges properly pursued, would not undermine the confidence in the institution, any more than would unfrocking a priest destroy reverence for the priesthood. The condition that now exists is general in its tendencies. Not a court, but the courts, are frequently and fiercely attacked. Political parties of all creeds have bowed their heads in recognition of a discontent, which if not general, at least bears the appearance of potentiality. All of this tends to destroy confidence in the courts and to make a subservient judiciary. The people have been led away from the principle that the independence of the judiciary is one of the mainstays of civil liberty under self-government, which is based on mutual self-restraint, and the belief that it is no less important than the principle of representation itself. We might profit from the utterances of despotic governments. The Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Prussia ordered to be framed and hung up in its hall a letter from Frederick the Second enjoining its members to be faithful to their oath, and to do justice in spite of royal demand. In 1499 Louis XII of France ordained that the law should always be followed by the high courts of justice in spite of royal orders which importunities may have wrung from the monarch.

It does not lie alone within the province of monarchical govern