Thomas C. McClellan:

That

He is elected as provided in the first line of this amendment: "A General Council consisting of one member from each state to be elected by the Association," just as he is elected now. is for the purpose of giving some voice to the 92 per cent of the members who do not attend the meetings.

William A. Ketcham, of Indiana.

Perhaps they don't want a voice, otherwise they would attend the meetings.

Thomas C. McClellan :

I don't know about that. Take the ballot in this country. Tens of thousands of men don't vote. But you go to Indianapolis and propose to take away the ballot from them and you will stir up a row that will shake the republic.

This is a letter addressed to me by William Howard Taft under date of July 26, 1920:

"I have your letter of July 20th and the enclosure. I approve all of your amendments to the present constitution and by-laws of the American Bar Association. I have always thought that the method of electing a central committee was very defective. I fear that I shall not be present to vote for them, however. "With best wishes, I remain

66

Yours sincerely,

66 WILLIAM H. TAFT.”

I submit that judgment of a former President of the United States, and a former President also of this Association.

Now I have delivered myself at much greater length than I thought I should, and I very much appreciate the attention and consideration that has been accorded to me.

Thomas W. Shelton, of Virginia:

May I ask the gentleman from Alabama why the state bar associations should not select the members of the General Council?

Thomas C. McClellan :

I think an answer to that is this: No independent organization is going to submit the nomination of its officers to any body over which it has no control.

Thomas W. Shelton:

Why not permit the members of state bar associations who are present at the meeting to make the nominations?

Thomas C. McClellan :

That is a suggestion that came from my good friend Reynolds of Kansas City, and that is better than what we have now. But the state bar associations do not all meet at the same time, and the general objection that I have to that is the same as my objection to the present method, namely, that 92 per cent of the lawyers won't travel to attend these meetings, many of them cannot attend, and they are deprived of a right to participate in the organization. Now, we want to reach the man in his home in the middle of the year and give him an opportunity to vote to nominate a member of the General Council and thus give him an interest in the work of the Association. I want to see the membership of this Association go in the next 12 months to 30,000, and it can be done if we will go at it right. We are going to have the best Law Journal that any legal enterprise ever produced or can produce, and when we get a membership of 30,000, why, it will be only a step to increase it to 50,000.

James H. Harkless:

In reference to the suggestions made by Judge McClellan in the early part of his remarks, I think we would all be in accordance with them if it were possible. A town meeting was the proper thing in the days when we could have town meetings, but when the time came in which town meetings could no longer be held the advantages claimed for them ceased. I do not believe that this Association can function better by attempting to throw openthe discussion of anything and everything to the public in two days. It would be utterly impossible to do anything of that sort. I have in mind some of the distinguished members of our Association who want two days in order to discuss one single subject. Of course, the idea is a splendid one, but when you attempt to put it into practical effect, it cannot be done. If we are to lengthen our session's to a week or a month, then possibly the discussion of subjects could be thrown wide open to everybody. Even Congress, which sits sometimes for a year with no more members than we have, have found that they cannot do

anything sometimes in six months, especially if everybody is to discuss the question. Now with over 11,000 members in the Association, what could we do here in open discussion of subjects that should be brought before the Association? I say the idea is all right, but practically it will not work. I think experience has shown that, and the mere fact that the institution has grown in the direction that it has is proof that it is a necessity to conduct its business in the manner in which it is conducted. I do not believe that this Association is ready for an open discussion of all questions on the floor at each meeting. I do not believe we could ever get along with it, and especially if a larger percentage of the members should attend the meetings. With this view in mind I certainly would not be in accordance with the amendments that have been suggested by the gentleman from Alabama.

Harry S. Mecartney, of Illinois:

I am glad that the Open Forum idea has been started and that an appeal has been made to the membership at large to do something to extend the influence of this great Association. Nobody has any influence who merely has brain, without equipment. No collective body of men amounts to much in these times if it simply suggests, resolves, and discusses.

This Association, I have felt, for 15 or 16 years, ought to change its methods and accept the call to a greater and more constant service. I do not mean to underestimate the amount of work and time devoted to the Association every year by members of committees; but we are talking by the law of averages. And this Association is having merely the influence due to the average membership attending its meetings. Therefore, I am not spurred by the increase, or worried over the non-increase, in membership. There is influence in members, but there is ten times the influence in work and deliberation and service. You will have your members if you create such an ideal of service. In my judgment the reason most of us are not making much progress in the profession is that we do not do enough work. Let us apply ourselves to that condition.

In 1906 I felt so earnestly about this matter, that at the particular suggestion of George R. Peck, who was then the President of the Association, at the Minneapolis meeting, I presented

one or two suggestions-they haven't yet been adopted because my influence in this body was very slight-and I have advocated them ever since. I sent them to the membership at large in advance of the meeting in Portland in 1907, and when at that meeting it came to the item of new business, President Alton B. Parker, of New York, warned us that there were only 12 minutes allotted to new business. I read my resolutions in the 12 minutes, because I had them boiled down, and I read them fast, and nobody else had anything to say.

Now, the point is this: We want to plan for something more than annual meetings and banquets and toasts.

My idea is that we ought to open a permanent office of this Association somewhere in the central part of this country, with a salaried secretary and an assistant secretary, who will give constant attention to the work of the Association. We want a permanent clearing house, as it were, a place that any member of the Association anywhere in the country who wants to connect up for information with the American Bar Association will know where to apply; where committees can be presumed to meet; and where information may be properly supplied; and in order to do that we may need to have an increase in our dues. I think we ought to double them. I don't know just what they are now,. I think $10, but I think they ought to be made $20.

Ashley Cockrill, of Arkansas.

The way that we ought to look at the American Bar Association is the way that the new member looks at it, the man who has just come in. My appearance will probably surprise some of you when I state that I have been a member of the American Bar Association for 19 years. I can give the members here some idea as to how the new member looks at the American Bar Association and what he thinks about it. The trouble with the American Bar Association is that the new member, and the man who does not belong to it, looks upon it as an organization run by a coterie of distinguished lawyers, and that he has little to say about the election of officers, and little to do with its affairs, and no part on the program. If you want to make the American Bar Association effective throughout the length and breadth of the land, the thing that you have got to do is to make it more democratic.

The ordinary private in the ranks of the American Bar Association has very little to do with its management.

If we want to advance the interest and the influence of the Association we must make it more attractive to the new member. I think the first thing that ought to be done is to give the general membership more influence in the selection of the officers of the Association. Under the system that we have at present there might be only one man in some state who attends a meeting. That man nominates a member of the General Council from his state, and he is elected. He may nominate the vicepresident from his state, and he is elected. He nominates the members of the Local Council from his state and they are elected. Now, the nominations thus made may be entirely appropriate, but they may not be representative of the wish and will of the Bar of that particular state. I think if we want to increase the influence of the American Bar Association, one of the first things that we ought to do is to adopt the amendment to the Constitution and By-Laws as proposed here by Judge McClellan.

I would be the last man to detract from the interest that the big lawyers in this country have created or from the great work that they have performed on the programs of our various meetings, but if you want the American Bar Association to be a power and a great influence in this country you must interest the men at home in the Association. If you give the men in Arkansas and the men in Vermont the opportunity to have an election, that will do more to keep up their interest in this Association than anything else. I can see no harm in the proposal made by Judge McClellan, and I think it should be adopted. We have over 11,000 members in the Association now, and there are only 600 members here. Many of them cannot afford to come -many of those in the South particularly-they cannot afford to make these trips, to Saratoga Springs and to Montreal, and to the Pacific Coast and elsewhere. Many of them have court engagements that prevent their coming. The Association should give to those men some voice in the participation in these proceedings.

James D. Andrews, of New York:

I have been a member of this Association for a great many years, and I have studied its proceedings closely, and I should