Perhaps, at this time, it may not be practicable, may not be wise, to refuse admission to an applicant on other grounds than those that would justify his disbarment, if already admitted. Consider, however, what a long step forward even this standard would mark.

Doubtless, after the Bar and the public have come to appreciate the beneficial results of the effective application of this standard, they will approve of the exclusion from practice of applicants on grounds of general lack of character.

The best elements for success in this character inquiry, as applied to applicants for admission to the Bar, are well portrayed

sponsibilities of an attorney-at-law have been frequently admitted to the Bar.

"I confess that I do not see any very practical way of excluding from admission to the Bar persons otherwise qualified, upon the mere general ground of lack of moral character. It occurs to me that some more definite standard would be necessary in order for any particular results to be achieved. It could be provided that no one who had been convicted of certain crimes or misdemeanors should be eligible to admission to the Bar, and that conviction for the same should require their disbarment by the judge of the circuit in which they resided. Such provision might also be profitably extended so as to exclude any person against whom any verdict, decree or judgment had been rendered in a civil transaction which found that he had been guilty of actual fraud, but unless some fixed standard can be devised, the existence of which can be ascertained as a matter of fact, and which shall operate as a fixed rule for exclusion of applicants, I do not believe that any efficient provision will ever be successfully maintained for excluding persons from taking the Bar examinations, and. if intellectually competent, being admitted.

"Even if some tribunal should pass generally upon what is understood to be moral character (meaning thereby general character), should it exclude persons as to whom some definite acts of moral turpitude could not be shown, there would be such complaint raised about favoritism that I do not believe such tribunal would long survive.

"On the whole, the subject is a very difficult one and I confess I do not see clearly a way to handle it efficiently, and I fear that like all other professions we will be compelled to let the black sheep come in and simply trust to the course of events showing who are trustworthy and who are not and let the public condemn the untrustworthy by a want of patronage."

in the work of the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association of the City of Boston.

The remarkable success of this work is due to the permanency of the committee, its long-continued consistent work, and the conservative but careful treatment given to each case.

The committee has acquired the approval and cordial support of the courts, which it relieves of some disagreeable duty; of the Bar, whose honest members it protects from injurious public attacks; and of the public, which, with the lapse of years, has come to realize that no community in the country has a Bar with a higher standard of ethics than the City of Boston.

Irrespective of the machinery provided for the work, an inquiry into the moral character of applicants for admission to the Bar made in the same spirit will fully justify itself in any jurisdiction.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECTION OF PATENT, TRADE-MARK AND COPYRIGHT LAW

Montreal, Canada, Tuesday, September 2, 1913.

The Section of Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law of the American Bar Association convened in regular annual meeting on Tuesday, September 2, 1913, at 3 o'clock.

Robert H. Parkinson, of Illinois, Chairman of the Section, presided.

In the absence of the Secretary, Ernest W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., was elected Secretary pro tem.

The Chairman in a short address called attention to the subjects of special interest to the Section at the present time, touching upon pending legislation and the new Equity rules. He also spoke of the unusual circumstances surrounding the present meeting, including the address by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain to the American Bar Association and the presence of the Chief Justice of the United States at the same meeting and felicitated the Section upon his success in securing an eminent representative of the King's Counsel of Great Britain to deliver an address to this Section, and also upon securing the attendance of one of the eminent leaders of the American Bar in our branch of the profession for the same purpose.

The Chairman then introduced A. J. Walters, K. C., of the London Bar, who delivered an address upon the subject " Procedure in the Trial of Patent Causes in Great Britain."

(This paper follows these minutes, page 789.)

The Chairman then introduced Mr. Frederick P. Fish, of Boston, Massachusetts, who delivered an address upon the subject: 66 Letters Patent in Relation to Modern Industrial Conditions." (This paper follows these minutes, page 805.)

On motion the Section extended its profound thanks to both speakers for their very able and instructive addresses.

The Chairman then appointed Melville Church, of Washington, D. C.; George P. Barton, of Illinois, and Fred L. Chappel, of Michigan, as the Committee on Nominations.

Joseph R. Edson, of Washington, D. C., spoke briefly on the subjects discussed by the principal speakers.

The Chairman then introduced Robert C. Smith, K. C., of Montreal. Mr. Smith responded with a brief address, extending congratulations and best wishes on behalf of the Canadian Bar and dwelt instructively upon some features of Canadian patent law and practice, concluding with these remarks:

"Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Canadian Bar allow me to express to you the profound sense of the obligation we are under to you in coming to meet here in the city of Montreal. We have felt it to be a very great honor and a very great distinction to our city to have the several great bodies associated together meet here in connection with the meeting of the American Bar Association, and every one of us feels that such a meeting must be productive of the strengthening of those bonds of amity, of brotherhood, of mutual confidence, and I may go further and say, of mutual affection, between us that have so happily distinguished the latter portion of this century."

The Committee on Nominations then reported the nomination of Robert H. Parkinson, of Chicago, Illinois, as Chairman for the ensuing year, and Ernest W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., as Secretary.

The officers nominated were duly elected.

No further business appearing, the meeting adjourned.

ERNEST W. BRADFORD,

Secretary.

PROCEDURE IN THE TRIAL OF PATENT CAUSES IN

GREAT BRITAIN.

BY

A. J. WALTERS, K. C.

OF LONDON, ENGLAND.

For a good many years I have been associated particularly with the branch of the law concerning patents and trade-marks in England, and when you gave me the honor of asking me to address you on the subject of patent law I asked Mr. Parkinson what subject he would like me to take up, and I was told that a complete change has been made in your procedure by the equity rules of February, 1913, and he said that as that practice was similar to our practice in England, he thought this would be a suitable subject.

I have had an opportunity of reading the equity rules, and so far as I can see they do approximate closely to the present procedure which we have in patent causes in England. That has been largely the creature of statutes, and it was the creature of the statute until our last Act of 1907. We now have a very apt way of introducing new rules in practice when it is found necessary by means of the judiciary. Power is given under the Act for what we call the Rules Committee, which consist of our Judges, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice, and a certain number of Judges, and one or two members of the Bar, to make rules, and those rules when made are laid on the table of the House of Commons for six weeks, and if not interfered with they become law, and they never are interfered with, for it is nobody's business to look after rules of procedure, and so our rules are made in that way, and they approximate very closely to your new rules.

I will deal with a patent suit in England as it is taken up there. There are two courses which we may take to launch an action for infringement. We either assume that the patent is valid and make no searches at all and wait until the defence is