may be restrained by interim or perpetual injunction by the high court of justice.

Such a statute rigidly enforced by a judge, chosen by a political machine, would be an inestimable boon to that swarm of petty political rascals who infest both political camps in our great centers and are continually seeking office for the purpose of using positions thus obtained in one way and another to levy blackmail on those in any way dependent upon the public conduct of these prætorians of politics.

While it is hardly legislation, yet it may be proper to note that a sub-committee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives was directed by resolution of the House, to investigate charges made against Cornelius H. Hanford, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, residing at Seattle in that state. On the 22d of July this year, after this investigation had been proceeding for some weeks, Judge Hanford resigned, and the House has dropped these proceedings.

In the same month the House of Representatives presented to the Senate articles of impeachment against Robert W. Archbald of Scranton, Pennsylvania, Circuit Judge of the United States assigned to the Commerce Court. I am sure that the members of this Association feel a sincere regret for the apparent necessity that seemed to suggest these proceedings and that we all hope, as to the case against Judge Archbald, that a full and complete investigation by the Senate may result in his complete exoneration from any suspicion of judicial misconduct.

The trial by the Senate has been set for December 3d next.

As to Judge Hanford, having read such of the evidence as has been printed in the newspapers, I venture to express the opinion, though possibly I ought not to, that the matter sought to be proved seems to have been for the most part trivial and falling far short of such high crimes and misdemeanors as would warrant impeachment of a federal judge.

We ought not, however, to condone nor gloss over the shortcomings of the Bench. There is altogether too much of an effort

on the part of some lawyers to do this and to stand well with judges and to some extent to make this their stock in trade.

A judge ought to be held to high standards of public and official conduct and the Bar ought, and I believe are, generally disposed, to insist upon such standards.

If we feel a just pride in the splendid record of the Bench and Bar of our country, this should lead us not to deny the faults of either, but to recognize and seek to correct them; and, so far as we can exercise our influence, to make judges and lawyers what they ought to be; and then not be unduly disturbed at the empty criticism of both orders on which the public is fed by the shallow and frivolous. I have sufficient confidence in the wisdom and patriotism of our people to believe that they cannot thus be misled unless there is some basis for such attacks.

An effort was made to abolish the new Court of Commerce and indeed the additional Circuit Judgeships which were filled in order to constitute this court. I believe at the present time this matter is in conference between the two Houses of Congress. It is difficult to see how, consistently with constitutional principles, the offices thus filled by appointment for life can be abolished during the tenure of the incumbents. There is no doubt that the Commerce Court may be. If the suggestion of the President, made to us last year, that this court take patent appeals, had been regarded and legislation accordingly adopted, probably there would have been no danger that the court would be abolished.

The effort to legislate the judges out of office has been abandoned.

The income tax amendment has been ratified by so many states that there seems to be no doubt of its adoption. This being so the necessity for adopting the Excise Bill already referred to, obviously of doubtful constitutionality, is not apparent unless suggested by some political exigency not avowed by those who support it.

Before turning to other topics, I wish to refer to a subject to which this Association and its committees have given much attention the Reform of Procedure.

I think the sentiment of the profession is rather crystallizing

in favor of the idea that pleading and practice in civil cases should be regulated in the main by rules of court promulgated by the court of last resort in the jurisdiction. This idea has been ably advocated by Mr. Roscoe Pound and recommended by our special committee to suggest remedies in this regard, of which Mr. Everett P. Wheeler has for some years, with signal ability and great fidelity, acted as Chairman.

In this way a larger measure of responsibility would be placed upon the court of last resort. The members of such a tribunal would not then be in a position to say as often as they now can, that they declare but do not make the law.

As to these matters they would make it, and where abuse existed in this field, they would be responsible for its correction. This also would secure that flexibility and adaptability which is especially desirable in rules of practice.

Whatever system may be adopted, this also is undoubtedly true; the most vital thing to the intelligent and efficient administration of justice in our courts is the spirit in which those concerned in it participate in its administration. In this respect, a great responsibility rests both upon Bench and Bar and we ought to be mindful of it not only in attendance here but in the strife and excitement of the court room as well.

I do not intend to discuss the proposed judicial recall already in force in some states. Our committee will deal fully with it. As to judges elected for short terms, it is preposterous. At present I am opposed to it in any form or under any conditions.

We ought not to rashly assail the very foundations of our system of judicial administration which has been so slowly and elaborately developed and has on the whole, as we know whatever others may suppose, worked so well.

However, an interesting and important suggestion made by a brilliant member of the Chicago Bar, Mr. A. J. Eddy, in a paper recently read before the Bar Association of that city, that our state judges be elected or appointed for life subject to the recall, will be well worthy of serious consideration if this remedy, as applied to local municipal officers and others not judicial, meets, after sufficient experience, with general popular approval.

It is conceivable that such a plan might secure to judges now elective, greater independence and security of tenure than they now enjoy.

There is another subject to which I wish to refer in passing. The efforts of Mr. Choate and other leaders of our Bar to raise a suitable fund for the widow and daughters of the late Mr. Justice Harlan forcibly direct our attention to the scandalous parsimony of the nation in its treatment of the judges. Their meagre salaries are entirely inadequate.

But certainly their retiring pensions should be continued to their widows and daughters; or else in every case Congress should make special provision. The National Corporation Reporter of Chicago under date of August 1, has an excellent and timely article on this subject.

No sum of money could adequately recompense the inestimable public service of John Marshall Harlan.

In the high domain of federal constitutional law he stands second only to the great chief justice, whose profound conceptions of national unity and national authority he vitalized and applied to present problems and present needs.

If we consider the significant legislation of the several states, the first that seems to me to merit attention is the rapid progress of the movement to secure presidential primaries, at which the electors of the states express their preference among the various candidates in their party for the presidency. I believe the first statute providing for such a primary was adopted by Oregon in November, 1910. Now in addition to that state, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Nebraska, California, North Dakota Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Illinois and Arizona have statutes more or less similar.

The statutes for such primaries in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Illinois have been adopted since the last meeting of this Association.

I refer particularly to these statutes because they seem to be part of the general national movement towards popularizing the selection of the President and really more completely frustrating the constitutional method of choosing him, if possible, than has been for many years accomplished by common consent.

To refer to constitutional changes pending or adopted, it may first be noted that Arizona was admitted as a state, February 14 of the present year, after the President had vetoed a joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, admitting the territories of New Mexico and Arizona into the union. That resolution, among other things, provided that Arizona should be so admitted upon condition of submitting to the electors of that state, at the time of the election of state officers, a proposed amendment to its constitution, by which judicial officers should be excepted from the section of its constitution permitting the recall of elective officers. This provision as well as that for the judicial recall in the proposed constitution having been eliminated and Arizona admitted as a state, its first legislature meeting the 18th of March last, one of its first acts was to submit to the electors of the state an amendment to its constitution to provide for the recall of judges, being the provision in the proposed constitution, the presence of which in that instrument induced the President to veto the joint resolution of Congress as stated.

Not only has an effort thus been made to incorporate this feature into the organic law of that state, but an attempt to extend the recall principle to the federal judiciary has been made the subject of a statute adopted at the same session at which the constitutional amendment was proposed.

It provides that a petition of 15 per cent of the voters shall require the submission to popular vote of the question of requesting the resignation of a District Judge of the United States for the District of Arizona, the petition to set forth the reasons in not more than 200 words; that on the same ballot, but separate from the question, there shall be placed the names of as many candidates for successor to such judge as shall have been proposed by five per cent petitions; that if the recall of the sitting judge is favored by a majority vote, the result shall be officially transmitted to the President and the Senate of the United States, along with the name of the candidate receiving a majority of the votes as that of the person recommended in case the office becomes vacant by resignation or otherwise.

The same law provides that in case of vacancy on the United