repeaters and other serious offenders, there was a rush of demands from defendants for speedy trial or disposition of their cases before the new laws should become effective, so that they might come under the mantle of the old rather than be subjected to the operation of the new.

We especially commend, too, the work that some of the law schools have undertaken, the research work along the lines indicated and the extent to which they have loaned gratuitously some of the members of their faculty to carry on this work.

Some localities are now handling the situation well; very many others not so well.

Personally I have a notion that we are confronted by a grave problem, one that will never be wholly solved, one that will call for the best services of American officials and the American public and the American Bar in the years to come. Our expanse of territory, our hard-surfaced roads, our rapid means of transportation, and our diversity of population make our problem most difficult. The processes of democracy are sometimes slow, but we have met great emergencies many times in the past in this country with satisfactory results; and I have an abiding faith in the capacity of the American people to ultimately handle this crime problem, at least as well as any other people in the world The President:

I trust that the Chairmen of the Sections and committees will observe the by-laws of the Association. The reports have been printed. It is required that the Chairmen will state briefly the contents of the reports.

We will now hear from the Section on Comparative Law. The report will be presented by William M. Smithers, of Philadelphia.

Robert P. Shick, of Pennsylvania:

Mr. Smithers is out of the country. As the secretary of that Bureau I would say that we are asking nothing of the Association but its interest in our work, and I hope that the Association and the members of the Association will not find our work without interest. If they will look each year at the April number of the JOURNAL they will find the work that is being done by the members of the Bureau-entirely voluntary work, and a work which is nothing but a labor of love. We would like to have more general interest from the members of the Association.

The President:

The next is the report of the Judicial Section, which will be made by Judge James I. Allread, of Columbus, Ohio.

Judge Allread:

The report will be very brief. We held two meetings of the Judicial Section, one in the afternoon of Tuesday, and a dinner last night. While the attendance was not all that we desired, those who were present were intensely interested in the questions which have been agitated by the lawyers of the country and which devolve, to a large extent, on the judicial procedure of the country.

We were addressed by Dean Roscoe Pound, in a very instructive address. We were also addressed by Chief Justice Allen and Judge Burke of this state, and Judge Dawson, of the State of Kansas. These were fine addresses and we hope the lawyers of the Association will do the judges the honor of reading their addresses through the published report.

The President:

Next is the report of the Section on Legal Education. In the absence of the Chairman of the Section, Mr. Silas H. Strawn, of Chicago, Illinois, the report will be made by the Secretary, Mr. John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin.

Mr. Sanborn:

At the last meeting of The American Bar Association there was a resolution reported to it by the Section, that the Supreme Court of the United States adopt rules for the special examination as to character and fitness of applicants for admission to practice in the Federal District Court. That resolution was transmitted to the Supreme Court, and at the request of the court the Council of Legal Education has presented a tentative draft of such rules and they will be taken up at the next meeting of the Board of Circuit Judges for consideration, and we hope we will have action by the Supreme Court in accordance with that resolution in the near future.

The Council of Legal Education has continued the inspection of law schools of the country, and during the past year has admitted to the approved classification a number of new law schools, so that there are now 64 schools on the approved list.

The council has abolished what was known as the Class B List. That was put in as a temporary measure, the object being to indicate that certain schools expected in the near future to comply with the standards of The American Bar Association. The Council felt that the temporary list had served its purpose, and that hereafter we would only issue a list of approved schools showing those that had fully complied with the standards.

The Council has continued the work entrusted to it by the Association, of endeavoring to bring to the attention of prospective law students the classification of schools and the standards recommended by The American Bar Association; and again we ask the aid of the members of the Bar Association in order that we may reach, as far as possible, those who are intending to study law.

We have issued a pamphlet which explains briefly the reasons inducing The American Bar Association to make the recommendation it did, which contains a list of the approved schools, and copies of that pamphlet are at the Secretary's office and are available to members of the Association, or if you will write the Secretary you will be furnished copies, and we will be glad of any assistance in distributing those pamphlets.

During the past year two states have substantially adopted the standards for admission to the Bar recommended by The American Bar Association-Ohio and Wisconsin. It is interesting to know, in the meeting held here in what I might call the western part of the Middle West, that with one exceptionWest Virginia-the states which have made notable progress in the adoption of the standards recommended by the Bar Association since the action in 1921 are all in the Middle West, those that I named last year-Kansas, Montana and Coloradobeing the other notable exceptions.

There is no action of the Association called for by anything reported by the Section.

The President.

Next is the report of the Section on Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law, which will be made by its Chairman, Arthur C. Fraser, of New York.

Mr. Fraser:

The Section of Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law has been occupied during the past year in the effort to secure the enactment by Congress of the bills amending the Trade-Mark Law, the Patent Statutes, and the Judicial Code concerning certain patent suits, which bills were approved by The American Bar Association at its meetings at Philadelphia in July, 1924, and at Detroit in September, 1925. It has also been considering proposals for future adoption for the further improvement of the patent statutes, and has been concerned with bills pending in Congress for the amendment of the Copyright Laws and for the provision of protection for Industrial Designs by copyright registration; but as to these matters it is necessary only to report progress and to state that no final action on them has been had by the Section.

The Federal Trade-Mark Bill as approved by this Association in July, 1924, was the subject of hearings in 1925 before the Senate and House Committees on Patents, which resulted in the bill with amendments being reported favorably by the Senate Committee, but too late for passage by the 68th Congress. It was re-introduced in both houses of the present Congress in this same amended form, and the House Bill, H. R. 6248, was the subject of hearings by the House Committee on Patents on March 25 and 26, 1926, at which the bill was supported by members of the Committee on Legislation of this Section. These hearings resulted in certain further amendments being proposed by this committee and tentatively approved by a majority of the House Committee on Patents, but before final action by that committee the subject was deferred until the next session of Congress. The bill as amended according to these proposed amendments is printed in the Program on page 151, and at the meeting of this Section on July 13, 1926, the bill as thus amended was approved by the Section and recommended to the Association for its endorsement.

The bill amending Section 52 of the Judicial Code, which this Association approved at Detroit in September, 1925, was introduced as H. R. 6252 and after hearings was reported favorably to the House with slight amendments and was passed by the House of Representatives on April 28, 1926, and is now

before the Senate with the prospect of its passage at the next session of Congress.

The bill for the amendment of the Patent Law which was approved by the Association at Detroit in September, 1925, was introduced as H. R. 7087, and the House Committee on Patents gave a hearing on this bill on February 4, 1926, at which this Section was represented by the Chairman and members of its Committee on Legislation. It met with considerable opposition and was not approved by the House Committee on Patents. It became evident that the Committee on Patents would not report the bill in the form presented, and our Committee on Legislation endeavored to re-frame the bill in such manner as to overcome the objections of the opponents of the bill, with the result that another bill was introduced by Mr. Vestal, the Chairman of the House Committee on Patents, as H. R. 12368. This bill was the subject of careful consideration and discussion at the meeting of the Section held July 13, 1926, with the result that the Section approved the bill with certain amendments which were found acceptable to the Commissioner of Patents, who personally took part in the discussion, and the Chairman of the Section was directed to report this action of our Section to the Association and to move the approval of H. R. 12368 as thus amended by the Section.

The bill, H. R. 12368, is the same as printed in the program for this meeting on page 170, and as approved by the Section is amended as follows:

Section 3 amends Section 482 of the Revised Statutes to read as follows:

SEC. 482. The examiners in chief shall be persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability. The Commissioner of Patents, the first Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the examiners in chief shall constitute a board of appeals whose duty it shall be, on written petition of the appellant, to review and determine upon the validity of the adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents, and for reissues of patents, and in interference cases. Each appeal shall be heard by at least three members of the board of appeals, the members hearing such appeal to be designated by the commissioner. The board of appeals shall have sole power to grant rehearings.

I will state for the information of those who have not been following this work, that that Section cuts down the present two successive appeals in the Patent Office to one, by merging