committee is of opinion, that the present method of appointment by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, should not be changed; and, as to the tenure of office, the committee advises that short and uncertain tenures of office are not to be desired. Therefore, the committee recommends that there be no change in the tenure of office.

As to the removal of federal judges: The committee reports, that, where, from among a learned profession, a certain few are set apart as worthy to be vested with the large powers of the federal judiciary, there should be no removal from the bench save for grave and weighty reasons. By no proceeding less imposing than that of impeachment by the representatives of the nation, in the face of the nation, and on a responsibility which is felt by the nation, should a judge be degraded. Respect should be shown not to the man, but to the Judge-to him who personifies the law. I submit the report and move that it be adopted.

The motion was seconded.

Alfred Hayes, of New York:

I ask that the question be separated.

The Chairman:

The report is separable into three parts. I ask the Chairman of the committee to state the first recommendation.

Peter W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

The first recommendation is that the resolution offered by Mr. Mackenzie, of Maryland, be not adopted.

That resolution provided that it was the sense of the Association that in all criminal proceedings on a confession, the confession should not be received in evidence unless it were affirmatively shown that the same was made not only voluntarily, but in the presence of a third person selected by the accused.

The recommendation to reject the resolution was thereupon adopted.

P. W. Meldrim, of Georgia:

The next matter reported by the committee refers to the creation and removal of federal judges and the abolition of the life tenure of office.

The Chairman:

Are you ready for the question upon the recommendation that the committee has made respecting this matter?

Alfred Hayes, of New York:

Both of the remaining questions are tied up together. I hesitate to enter into discussion of the tenure of office of judges, particularly in view of the fact that it is to be the subject of a paper to which we are to listen this evening.

Since this Association committed itself on the question of recall of judges new facts have arisen. A very large proportion of the voters have declared themselves in favor of the recall of judges. We listened yesterday to a very learned and impressive discussion, the beginning of which concerned itself with the nature of law. The implications from that address are perfectly obvious that law is not an immutable thing, but a changing thing, and that it must be responsive to the best intelligent will of the community; and I only want to say this in explanation of my vote, should I at this time vote against either of these recommendations: That the judiciary must have such a tenure of office or must be removable under such conditions that it is within a reasonable period responsive to the public will in the changing and development of the law. The history of our political institutions shows an effort on the part of the mass of the people to control the executive power; on the part of the people to influence in some way the legislative power, and thus gradually getting control

The Chairman:

The Chair suggests that inasmuch as this subject is to be the text of the paper to be presented to the Association this evening, when the entire evening will be devoted to the reading of the paper and its discussion, that in fairness to a long list of committees who have reports to make, the consideration of the remaining part of this report should be deferred. The Chair hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

The Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure.

H. D. Estabrook, of New York:

There was referred to the Committee on Judicial Administration and Remedial Procedure, at the last session of the Association, a resolution offered by Joseph B. David, of Illinois, to amend section 1033 of the Revised Statutes of the United States by adding thereto the following words:

"When any person is indicted for any criminal offence or against whom has been filed an information charging a crime or misdemeanor, a copy of the indictment or information shall be furnished him, without cost, at the time of or before his arraignment or before he is called on to plead to such indictment or information, and the names and addresses of the witnesses appearing before the Grand Jury, in case of an indictment, shall be endorsed on the back of such indictment, and, in case of an information, the names and addresses of the witnesses, so far as known to the district attorney at the time of the filing of such information, shall be endorsed on the back thereof. Every person charged with a criminal offence other than capital shall be furnished with a list of the jury and witnesses to be produced on the trial, so far as the same may be known to the district attorney, at least one entire day before trial."

The committee recommends the adoption of this resolution and for the following reasons: It is obvious that the object is to give to a person a reasonable opportunity to consider the specifications of the charge, the sources from which the charge emanates, in order that he may judge of the expediency of pleading guilty or standing trial, or of challenging jurors who may be prejudiced against him. The committee does not think that there should be any monopoly of these privileges to any class of criminals. It does not believe that the law itself should recognize an aristocracy of crime, and is rather of the opinion that the phrase "equality is equity" is something more than the maxim of a chancellor, and stands in this country for a political principle. The committee recommends that this doctrine be ex

tended to all classes of criminals.

The report was adopted.

(See Report in Appendix, page 471.)

The Chairman:

The Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

There were no questions submitted to the committee for consideration. A report has been prepared, but not printed owing to the fact that it asks no action by the Association.

I desire to say, however, that in February the committee sent a letter to the President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching suggesting to it that the Foundation should institute an investigation into the subject of legal education and admission to the Bar. Members may recall that in 1910 the Carnegie Foundation instituted an inquiry into the subject of Medical Education in the United States and in Canada, and submitted a most notable report which has had a very widespread influence not only in the United States but in Canada. That investigation extended over a period of more than a year, and it cost something over $50,000. Now this Association has no such sum of money which can be expended in making a similar investigation. Neither has the committee time to devote to such an investigation. Therefore it addressed this letter to the President of the Carnegie Foundation, expressing the hope that the investigation be made. I am glad to say that the request met with a hearty response, and that the Foundation has agreed to enter upon the investigation-indeed, that it has already entered upon it, and that it will extend over a period of a year. I have no doubt it will be most notable in its results.

The committee asks for no action by the Association at this time. I will simply ask permission that the report be accepted without reading.

Alton B. Parker, of New York:

In view of the oral report just submitted, I offer the following resolution-

The Chairman:

Is it with reference to the report?

Alton B. Parker, of New York:

To the report that has been read; yes, sir.

The Chairman:

It is not in order; the report not having been printed cannot be the subject of debate.

Henry Wade Rogers, of Connecticut:

The resolution which I understand Judge Parker wishes to offer is not endorsing any request which the committee makes; I respectfully submit that it is in order.

The Chairman:

While the ruling stands, yet if there is no objection the resolution may be read. The Chair hearing no objection, Judge Parker may read the resolution.

Alton B. Parker, of New York:

It is not at all necessary. It is a matter of no consequence to me, but I thought it was simply courteous to the committee. The resolution reads:

"Resolved, That the American Bar Association approve the action of the Committee on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar in inviting the Carnegie Foundation to make an investigaton into the subject of legal education and admissions to the Bar, and it is gratified to learn that the invitation has been accepted, and the investigation is now under way."

The Chairman:

The Chair must rule that the resolution does refer to the report of the committee in that it approves the report; therefore, it is manifestly out of order. The Chair so rules.

Nathaniel W. Ladd, of Massachusetts:

Do I understand the Chair to rule that no other business except that laid down on the program is germane at this time?

The Chairman:

We are in the order of receiving reports of committees. It is a fixed rule that reports of committees in order to be considered at a regular meeting of the Association must be printed in advance of the meeting. The reason is that members may know in advance what they are to be called upon to approve or disapprove.