of Bar Associations will be engaged in preparing Annotated Editions for the benefit of the Bench and Bar of their respective states.

In the meantime the Michigan State Bar Association by completing and publishing the Michigan Annotated Edition of the first three Tentative Drafts of the Conflict of Laws has made accessible to other State Bar Cooperating Committees an excellent example of what these State Annotated Editions usefully may contain. The Institute has also secured the services of Mr. Herbert F. Goodrich, the Chairman of the Committee which produced the Michigan Annotations, as its adviser for Bar and Public Relations. While it is an essential feature of the plan that these State Annotations shall be done under the sole responsibility of the Bench and Bar of the state as represented in a local organization, Mr. Goodrich, acting for the Institute, is at all times ready to give advice and suggestions based on his own experience and that of other states.

The begining of these State Annotations of the Restatement is a most important event. Another is the submission to our recent annual meeting of a Tentative Draft of the first half of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This first half covers all matters from arrest to trial. It represents two and a half years of work on the reports of Messrs. Wm. A. Mikell and Edwin R. Keedy and a distinguished group of judges and lawyers representing wide first-hand experience.

We expected very great interest in and much discussion of the draft at our annual meeting. In this we were not disappointed. But the adverse criticism of an opposition to some of the reforms suggested, which we also expected, did not materialize. I am within reasonable bounds in saying that the Draft was received with a distinct degree of enthusiasm. This of itself proves that the time is ripe for doing this work in Criminal Procedure. We have, however, other proofs. Several states have had or have commissions to submit changes in the Criminal Procedure of their states. These commissions have all been eager to secure even the Preliminary Drafts of the Code and have drawn freely from the suggestions found therein.

We are in receipt of many inquiries concerning the time when we expect to complete our work on the Code, and the answer being

that we expect to place a draft of the last chapters before our Annual meeting in the spring of 1930. Before that date, however, there is reason to expect that more than one State Legislature will adopt many of the provisions in the first half of the Code. There is no reason why they should not. Each chapter is practically self-contained. The evils existing in the present practice in one state are not necessarily those in another. What is working well should not be disturbed. It has never been our thought that all the states, or even any one of them, should adopt the Code as a whole.

The work which the Institute is doing in this Code of Criminal Procedure has a significance entirely apart from the public importance of the work itself. The undertaking of the work was a recognition on the part of our Council that the Institute was not necessarily limited to its work on the Restatement of the Law. In a few years some though not all our work on the first Restatement of the fundamental subjects of the Common Law will be done.

In doing the work we have built up an organization which has demonstrated the ability of the three branches of our profession, the Judge, the practitioner and the law teacher, as represented by their respective leaders, to cooperate in doing a difficult piece of constructive work for the improvement of the law. What should be the future aims of the Institute? What should it undertake to do to further formulate the adaptation of law, and its administration to the needs of life? These are the questions which those at present responsible for the Institute must answer in the next two or three years. The problems before us are not simple ones. We need in the future what we have had from the first, the sympathetic and intelligent help of the members of the American Bar Association and of its Executive Committee.

Chairman Long:

The next is the report of the Section on Criminal Law and Criminology, which will be made by Mr. Justin Miller, of Los Angeles, California.

Mr. Miller:

During the last three years the Section has interested itself in various crime surveys and in the activities of crime commissions.

At one of its meetings in Buffalo last year, the program consisted of a symposium upon interrelated problems of criminal law and psychiatry. This year we have had a similar symposium upon interrelated problems of criminal law and biology. These in addition to more conventional subjects.

The work of the Section during the past year may be summarized as follows:

First: A special committee of three members represented the Section and the Association at the annual meeting of the National Crime Commission at Washington last November. The same committee with other members of the Section have in other ways participated in the work of the National Crime Commission dur ing the year.

Second: A special committee of three members has worked during the year with a similar committee of the American Psychiatric Association in attempting to secure a better adjustment of the methods of the two professions in connection with the insanity defense and other problems of mental disorder in its relation to the law.

Third: Two of the officials of the Section have participated as members of an advisory committee of the American Law Institute in the preparation of the Model Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fourth: One member of the council of the Section has participated in the work of the Social Science Research Council in its researches in the field of crime and the Administration of Criminal Justice.

Fifth: A special investigation has been carried on by the Section, on the subject of organized crime, particularly with reference to the violation of the prohibition laws. A report upon the subject was presented at one of the Section meetings.

At the meetings of the Section held on Tuesday of this week several other reports were received and resolutions adopted.

The Committee on Psychiatric Jurisprudence reported progress in its work and recommended that it be continued. This recommendation was approved by the Section.

A report was made regarding the work of the National Crime Commission and a resolution was adopted by the Section recommending the appointment of a committee to cooperate again, during the coming year, with that commission.

A report was made regarding the work of the Social Science Research Council, and a resolution was adopted by the Section recommending the appointment of a special committee to cooperate with that council in such manner as may be proper and practicable.

The Section also adopted a resolution calling attention to the wide scope of the crime problem, the large number of agencies engaged in combatting it and suggesting that efforts be made to determine the nature and character of the programs being undertaken by responsible national bodies; to invite some of them from time to time to participate in the programs of the Section and to join with it in devising ways and means of solving the problem.

It seems particularly important that, as soon as possible, there be undertaken a restatement of the criminal law and a reclassification of crimes. Various efforts are under way to secure reliable statistics concerning the extent of crime, in order that it may be studied upon a comparative basis. Work along this line has been undertaken by the United States Census Bureau, by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and by the National Crime Commission. Before adequate work can be done, a common basis for comparison must be established. The main obstacle in the way of this accomplishment, is the difference, in the various states, between the definitions of crimes. If a restatement of criminal law, as it relates merely to the major felonies, could be agreed upon, this work would be tremendously expedited. Serious consideration should be given to even more fundamental changes in the reclassification of crimes. In connection with the increase in number of civil cases and the congestion of the civil courts a number of methods have been devised for wholesale alleviation of the situation. These include the use of arbitration, the declaratory judgment, the substitution of administrative processes in such cases as industrial accidents and public utility cases. In spite of all these remedies the congestion still remains acute. The situation is even more desperate in the criminal courts. In the absence of orderly substitute methods of procedure, comparable to arbitration and administrative adjustments, there have grown up large scale practices of "fixing" and "compromising" criminal cases. It is utterly impossible to try all of the cases which come into the criminal courts today, according to the methods devised

many years ago and still in vogue. Our unwillingness to recognize the true facts of the situation has led to a highly undesirable but unavoidable system of the kind just described.

By a reclassification of crimes, which would put into the group of felonies only a comparatively small number of major offenses, we could cut down the use of the grand jury and the use of the trial jury to a comparatively small number of cases. A large group of offenses, now generally classified as felonies, might be given another classification and tried upon information by criminal courts sitting without juries. In a third classification, might well be placed a large group of misdemeanors which could be settled by an administrative process similar to that now used by our administrative commissions and by the Juvenile Courts.

The people of this country undoubtedly look to the members of the legal profession for leadership in matters of general importance in the administration of criminal justice. The members of the Section have assumed that the Association has and will continue to have a very real interest in such matters. (See Proceedings, infra, p. 532.)

Chairman Long:

The next is the report of the Judicial Section. This report will be made by Judge T. Scott Offutt, of Maryland.

Judge Offutt:

The most useful function of the Judicial Section would seem to be to stimulate among its members an increased interest in the work of the Association itself, rather than to attempt to supplement or duplicate it by independent efforts, and, to foster in the American judiciary a consciousness of the dignity, the importance, the power and the responsibility of the judicial office.

The judicial function, it has been said, though sometimes questioned, is to apply the law and not to make it, and although judges are seldom in a position to take an active part in the reform of substantive law, they must, nevertheless, at all times be vitally interested in the procedure by which legal remedies are made available to the people, and also in the manner in which the law is administered. The responsibility for substantive law is with the people, that of procedural law partly with the state