to get the sense of the members here present with respect to whether they approve in principle the organization of the bar, and then later the appointment of a Conference Committee, that we vote separately on each paragraph of the resolution. Mr. Cohen:

I am reluctant to speak again, but in view of the statement by the gentleman from Nassau and the member from up-State, I think they ought to know that in the plan as contemplated, the local autonomy of each county will be preserved and the relationship of the County Associations to the State Bar Association makes for lively county organizations instead of dead

ones.

Mr. Dykman:

I think it would be well to vote on each paragraph separately because there is no use voting on the second if the first does not prevail for the reason that there would be no second ques-` tion to decide.

A Member:

I second the motion.

Mr. Dykman:

The question then is on the first paragraph of the resolution, which reads:

"Resolved, That the New York State Bar Association approves in principle the organization of the Bar of the State of New York, as recommended at the National Convention of Bar Association delegates."

Mr. Roche:

Mr. Chairman, may I just say one word. The point just mentioned by Mr. Cohen it seems to me is very important in the consideration here, and furnishes a strong reason for approving this principle, that is, if this state-wide plan goes through the Local Associations throughout the State will choose the delegates to the State Association, and instead of a group which is more or less interested in coming down here on its own motion, there will be representatives from the Local

Associations to the State body, which will give the State body a reputation, character and authority that it does not possess now, and which will, as Mr. Cohen very well says, I think, revive interest in the Local Bar Associations.

Mr. Ehrhorn:

Experience teaches there is a distinction between the sheep and the goats. It is always the goats they have taken advantage of.

Mr. Dykman:

The question is on the adoption of the first paragraph of that resolution.

Mr. Leavitt:

I rise to the question. Does that recommendation bring out the feature just spoken of as to the county organizations, because if it does that does away with a great many objections. We don't want to vote blindly on the subject.

We are just considering now the advisability of effecting the formation of a state-wide organization. With that there is carried the idea of bringing into a conference the representatives of various local organizations to make it effective. No one has any intention of disturbing the local organizations. The only thing we are attempting to do is to make a State organization, an organization that will represent the entire Bar of the State, whose meetings can be attended as has been suggested, by representatives from the various local organizations as well as by members of the bar at large. It seems to me that we can, with safety, permit the local organizations to look after the interests of the local organizations, in connection with the meeting that is intended to be called at which those local organizations will be adequately represented. But the question before us is a State organization. Are we going to attempt to organize the State organization in an efficient manner? That is all this resolution is trying to do.

Mr. Taft:

I do not want to prolong this discussion. I only want to dwell upon a single point, that is, that the Bar of this State

and the bar at large does not exercise an influence in the affairs of State and the Nation which is commensurate with its proper professional functions. Now, one reason for that is that the bar is not organized so as to give expression to its views.

In this city, for instance, the Bar Association of the City of New York has a membership of 2,800, the County Lawyers Association has a membership of 4,000. The Bar of this city has a membership of 15,000. So that a majority of members of the bar are not members of any organization.

Now, I take it that this motion will have two purposes, one to make the bar democratic, and the other will be to give some solidarity to the bar so that when it does speak it can speak for the entire bar as no Bar Association can now speak. That is one of the difficulties with the Association, exercising no influence, because they say they do not represent the Bar.

Now, I am favorable to this proposition, even if I think it might diminish the influence of individual Associations, for instance, if the Bar of the State should take action upon some particular proposition, and had a conference with each of the State Bar Associations, it, of course, would not dominate it, but nevertheless it would be the voice of the bar. And this movement is a movement, in my judgment, towards the rule of the majority of the bar.

Now, I do not share the apprehension of my friend, Mr. Forester, that the $1,000-a-day man will predominate in this Association. (Laughter.) Nor that those seven figured gentlemen, or the five figured gentlemen will dominate the action of the Bar.

I think that we will have to contend against possibly the Bolsheviki, as Mr. Cohen characterizes them, but we will have to leave that to better reason, and we will have the bar expressing the views of the profession if we have this organization, and further more any such tendency as that would be counteracted by the stimulation that would be given to the Bar Association in the different localities, and they will perhaps better represent the best sentiment of the bar, and will be actuated to take action upon matters now, which they either have not

sometimes the courage to speak of or the industry to examine, and our Associations, I am bound to say, are sometimes subject to that criticism, particularly and I should hope that if the entire bar were organized it would do what we have never been able to accomplish in any Bar Association, that is, have an adequate attendance at meetings of the Bar Association where they intend to act upon large and important matters.

The Chairman:

The question is upon the adoption of the first paragraph of the resolution. Are you ready for the question? As many as are in favor of the first paragraph will say Aye; contrary minded No.

The motion prevailed.

The second paragraph of the resolution, that a conference be called by the President of the Association, of delegates from each of the existing Bar Associations; you have read that, and I will not read it again. It follows almost of necessity, from the resolution you have just adopted. The question is upon the adoption of the second paragraph of the resolution. All in favor please say Aye; contrary minded No.

It is still No.

The question is upon the third part of the resolution:

"That the special committee on State Bar Organization be continued, to make the arrangements for and participate in such conference, and to report back at the annual meeting in 1925 its recommendations based upon such conference and further study of the matter."

As many as are in favor of this third paragraph will say Aye; contrary, No.

It still prevails.

A motion to adjourn is in order. We will now stand adjourned until 2:30 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon at 1:15 p. m. the meeting of the New York State Bar Association adjourned to meet at 2:30 o'clock the same day.)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18th, 1924, 2:30 P. M.

President Dykman in the Chair.

The Chairman:

Gentlemen of the Association, I shail speak of the Home Rule Amendment, and, that you may go along with me in the discussion of it, I have had reprinted, the concurrent resolution which submitted this amendment to the people, the concurrent resolution as adopted in 1922-1923.

ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT

Brethren of the Bar:

I shall speak of the Home Rule Amendment. On the face of it is conclusive evidence that it was drafted without full knowledge of the subject or consideration. We know aliunde that Governor Miller warned the draughtsman of its defects. It would seem that the Legislature read little beyond the label and that the people blindly adopted it allured by that most potent catchword, "Home-Rule."

I am reminded of a visit to my office by my late partner. Judge Cullen, bringing with him a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. Addressing me with unusual formality, the Judge said: “Mr. Dykman, I propose to head a subscription list to perpetuate the memory of the greatest Constitutional authority of the last century, Tim' Campbell. He condensed into a few words of reply to Governor Cleveland the great rule of contemporary constitutional interpretation, What is the Constitution among friends?'" and the Judge added: "If he were here today he would change his epigram to say: 'What is the constitution among judges.' I am tempted by the Home Rule Amendment to say: What is the constitution among legislators who with substantial unanimity submitted to the people a subject of such transcendent interest, with knowledge of its grave defects. Their punishment follows hard upon the offense though it scarce fits the crime, for the task is now upon them to put the amendment into execution. The importance of it is apparent. There are fifty-nine cities in the State and in these cities over eighty per cent of the people of the State reside. These cities range from the great metropolis with a population of six million to