Sixth District,

Seventh District,

Eighth District,

Ninth District,

First District,

Second District,

Third District,

Fourth District,

Fifth District,

Sixth District,

Seventh District,

Eighth District,

Ninth District,

George M. Champlin, Cortland.
George F. Andrews, Owego.
James P. Hill, Norwich.
John M. Brainard, Auburn.
Eugene Van Voorhis, Rochester.
Charles W. Kimball, Penn Yan.
A. G. Bartholomew, Buffalo.
Walter H. Edson, Jamestown.
Richard H. Templeton, Buffalo.
Francis X. Donoghue, Yonkers.
Ernest P. Hoes, New York.
George A. Slater, White Plains.

COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS

Charles Strauss, New York.
Allen Wardwell, New York.
Wilson M. Powell, New York.
George W. Alger, New York.

Frank S. Gannon, Jr., Richmond.
Elmer G. Sammis, Brooklyn.
Willard N. Baylis, Huntington.
Edward J. Byrne, Brooklyn.

J. Harris Loucks, Albany.
Howard C. Wilbur, Catskill.
Frederick C. Filley, Troy.
William G. Birmingham, Liberty.

Homer J. Borst, Schenectady.

Willoughby L. Sawyer, Hudson Falls.
Henry F. Toohey, Schuylerville.
Frederick G. Paddock, Malone.

Emerson M. Willis, Utica.

Stewart F. Hancock, Syracuse.
John D. McMahon, Rome.
Ira P. Betts, Phoenix.

John T. Buckley, Binghamton.
James S. Flanagan, Norwich.
Ely W. Personius, Elmira.
John P. Grant, Stamford.

Eugene J. Dwyer, Rochester.
Milo M. Acker, Hornell.

George S. Tinklepaugh, Palmyra.
Eugene Raines, Rochester.

James W. Persons, Buffalo.
George C. Lewis, Lockport.
Clarence H. Greff, Warsaw.
Philip J. Wickser, Buffalo.

Eugene F. McKinley, White Plains.
Edward Cornell, Central Valley.
Frank B. Lown, Poughkeepsie.

Jerome Alvord Peck, Port Chester.

First District,

Second District,

Third District,

Fourth District,

Fifth District,

Sixth District,

Seventh District,

Eighth District,

Ninth District,

COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES

Alfred E. Hinrichs, New York.
William C. Breed, New York.
Henry W. Sackett, New York.

Timothy M. Griffing, Riverhead.
William S. Pettit, Far Rockaway.
Edward Riegelman, Brooklyn.

John E. MacLean, Cohoes.
John W. Roberts, Troy.
Newton B. Van Derzee, Albany.

Louis M. Brown, Glens Falls.
Marvin H. Strong, Schenectady.
Walter Guest Kellogg, Ogdensburg.

George W. Reeves, Watertown.
Ezra A. Barnes, Oswego.
Frank N. Decker, Syracuse.

William H. Sullivan, Norwich.
Thomas J. Keenan, Binghamton.
Clayton R. Lusk, Cortland.

Harvey F. Remington, Rochester.
Arthur J. Hammond, Geneva.
Joseph P. Doyle, Rochester.

John C. Leggett, Cuba.
William Palmer, Buffalo.
Blaine F. Sturgis, Medina.

Charles D. Millard. Tarrytown.
Graham Witschief, Newburgh.
John F. McFarlane, Nyack.

COMMITTEE ON SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE

First District,

Second District,

Third District,

Fourth District,

Fifth District,

Sixth District,

DeLancey Nicoll, New York.
Clarence J. Shearn, New York.
Julius Henry Cohen, New York.
Herbert T. Ketcham, Brooklyn.
John Hill Morgan, New York.
Peter B. Olney, Jr., New York.
William L. Visscher, Albany.
Russell M. Johnston, Albany.
William D. Brinnier, Kingston.

Erskine C. Rogers, Hudson Falls.
D. B. Lucey, Ogdensburg.
Horton D. Wright, Gloversville.

Louis L. Waters, Syracuse.
Charles N. Bulger, Oswego.
Pascal C. J. DeAngelis, Utica.

Andrew J. McNaught, Stamford.
Frederick W. Clifford, Owego.
William L. Lewis, Binghamton.

GEO. W. WICKERSHAM, Chairman, New York.

HARRINGTON PUTNAM, Brooklyn,

CHARLES W. WALTON, Kingston,

JOSEPH A. KELLOGG, Glens Falls,
VIRGIL K. KELLOGG, Watertown,
HARVEY D. HINMAN, Binghamton,
CHARLES D. NEWTON, Geneseo,
JOHN ALAN HAMILTON, Buffalo,
GEORGE A. SLATER, White Plains,

Dated, New York, December 27, 1921.

Committee.

On motion duly made and seconded, the report of the Nominating Committee was received and placed on file for subsequent action at this annual meeting.

The President:

The next report, gentlemen, is from the Committee on Uniform State Laws.

Charles Thaddeus Terry, of New York:

Mr. President and Members of the Association.—Instead of summarizing a somewhat longer report which I have had the pleasure of presenting some years with a detailed statement of

the outstanding features of proposed uniform legislation for action by this Association, I have thought it well, if it be deemed agreeable, to read a brief report. It may in the form read be used by the Association to answer many inquiries which are received from members of the Association and others, communications addressed to this Association and to your committee with reference to the particular purposes and particular accomplishments along the lines of the movement on uniform state laws. I have not asked to have this report printed in advance, because I wish to leave it entirely open to the Association as to the printing of it, if it be deemed worthy, or any part of it, or none of it, as the case may be. It is very brief, Mr. Chairman.

The President:

It is entirely agreeable to have you submit that report, and I am sure it will be instructive to the officers and members of the New York State Bar Association.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM
STATE LAWS

To the New York State Bar Association:

Any people, which craves freedom, will desire law. Just to the extent to which an intelligent appreciation of the blessings of freedom and the horrors of a dominion of fear has enlightened the people, to that extent do they insist upon the definition of their rights and obligations by law, and demand that such law shall be simple, clear and of universal application. Ultimately, every citizen, whether his pursuits be those of the scholar in the university, or of the toiler in the hard school of experience, will concede the profound wisdom of the great Disciple of the Great Teacher when He gave utterance to the phrase, "The Perfect Law of Liberty." The seeming paradox involved in the phrase, is, in truth, a startlingly plain statement of the sum total of all sound political science. It is the compact definition of a true democracy. It has never been improved upon, and, it may be predicted boldly, that it never will. Perfect law makes liberty; liberty inheres in perfect law,

*Jas. I, 25.

The standard of perfection in law is attained precisely in the measure in which law is made simple, clear and uniform. The desired end is not, by any manner of means, attained when the law has been made simple and clear, though that be no mean accomplishment in itself. The law will fall far short of its province, and remain nothing but fragmentary and unequal and, therefore, unjust in its application, unless and until it shall have been made universal or uniform in the respects of time and place. All individuals at all times, and in all places, at least so far as a single nation is concerned, must, if the function of law is to be adequately fulfilled, be in a position to know their rights and obligations, whether industrial or social, from the beginning to the end of any transaction upon which they may embark, and likewise in any place in which the incidents of such transaction may be called into question, irrespective of the geographical boundaries of the political divisions of his country.

In the United States there are no such peculiarities of climate or location or racial distinction as would require the differentiation of the principles of law, or such as to justify the application of divergent or inconsistent rules and regulations to the citizens of different sections of the country, in their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In matters of inter-state concern, it is now well understood that the geographical boundaries of the various commonwealths are only imaginary lines which cannot be allowed to interrupt or obstruct the working of principles which are in their very nature universal.

The soundness of this doctrine has been amply demonstrated in theory, and now we have ample proof of its soundness in practice, not only in the history of the uniform laws, which the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promulgated in their operation throughout the states, but also and particularly in the insistent demand of our citizens of every walk in life, that, if duty, privileges and remedies are to be properly safeguarded, the laws embodying them must be uniform in their application.

This work has for its goal the achieving of a purpose which both stimulates and ennobles the workers. Its importance can hardly be over-estimated. To make uniform the law and, in the process, to clarify it, is a task worthy to enlist the best abilities of lawyers of the highest ideals of duty. For the