The President: You may be pretty sure of the attendance of all the Federal Judges if you hold it in New York and give them an opportunity to attend. The Secretary: Just one word, Mr. President, concerning the meeting in other places. If the meeting in New York were a success, I think it would be equally beneficial for this Association to meet in the city of Buffalo, for example, as Mr. Leavitt has mentioned that city; and for this reason, if we should meet in the city of Buffalo, I think we would get an increase in membership of at least a hundred. I know the Buffalo Bar. I believe they would turn out there and give us a warm and hearty welcome. Mr. Leavitt has mentioned the beautiful village of Elizabethtown. He forgets that that is the home of President Hand. One thought more on the membership part of it. The American Bar Association met in St. Paul last year in August and we had an increase in membership of over 600 new members. I think that is a side of this question which should be taken into consideration. There are a great many lawyers in this State who only lack the invitation to join the Association, and meeting in different places, I think, will enable them to receive such an invitation. One more thought, if the meeting were held in New York city the meeting itself could be held in the very hotel where most of the members would be housed. That is another desirable feature. Simon Fleischmann, of Buffalo: Which one is it? The Secretary: Any quantity of them, the New Astor, the Knickerbocker, the Waldorf-Astoria. Frank Harvey Field, of New York: I think one reason why the Bar Association ought to go to New York next year is that the present President will preside over the deliberations of the body next year, and that fact would lend a great deal of interest to the meeting of the Association. I believe that if it was known now that the meeting was coming to New York next year we would have an immense accession of members to the State Bar Association and very great added interest in it. This question of hotel accommodation is going to be very serious here in Albany. Not one in ten, scarcely, of the members of this Association has obtained decent accommodations here in Albany. We have had to double up and sleep together and walk around the town looking for places to sleep at this meeting of the Bar Association, and that is a sufficient reason why we should go somewhere else next winter. I think if we go to New York next time we can favor Buffalo later. I say that so that we can have the Buffalo vote with us this time. Simon Fleischmann, of Buffalo: Mr. President, I wanted to say on behalf of the lawyers of Buffalo and the citizens in general, that both Brother Wadhams and Brother Field are sound on the Buffalo proposition. We would be glad to have you there, and to have no mistake about it, I will state now two things: that I will vote for New York under the implied understanding that I will get its return vote for Buffalo next year, and I also desire to give notice that I now file an application for Buffalo two years hence so that the record may be straight and there will be no misunderstanding next year. Roland Crangle, of Buffalo: Mr. President, as a Buffalonian, I desire to supplement the remarks of Mr. Fleischmann in that regard. The President: I think another thing that ought to be stated is, if you go to New York you can sit down to dinner at any time you please and not have to wait until nine o'clock to have other people fed first. Edward S. Clinch, of New York: Mr. President, as indicative of the interest which New Yorkers have in the meetings of this Association, I should like to ask those gentlemen who live in New York City and within a radius of fifty miles of the city, to rise. (Twenty-one members responded to this request.) it seems to me this justifies our meeting in New York out of deference to the large representation at this meeting of members from New York City. What better place could this Association have for its meetings than in the beautiful assembly room of the City Bar Association, where we would meet in a legal atmosphere and where all the courtesies of that Association would certainly be extended to the members of this Association. John Brooks Leavitt, of New York: Following Mr. Clinch's precedent, I should like to ask the gentlemen from Buffalo to rise. (In response to this five members arose.) Mr. Leavitt (continuing): I withdraw my remarks and vote with the majority. The President: Gentlemen, are you ready for the question? It requires a vote of two-thirds in favor to carry this motion that the next meeting of this Association be held in New York. Those in favor of the motion will please rise and remain standing until counted. The Secretary: I think it would be easier to count the opposition. The President: Those opposed to the motion will rise. It seems to be a unanimous vote in favor of the next meeting being held in New York. Everett P. Wheeler, of New York: Mr. President, may I say that since the conversion of Saul there has been no more sudden conversion than that of Brother Leavitt. The President: We will proceed with the special order, the general discussion of the topic suggested by President Roosevelt's message to Congress. The discussion will be opened by Professor Huffcut who is now present. Ernest W. Huffcut, of Ithaca: Mr. President and gentlemen, President Roosevelt, in his message of December 4, 1906, wrote as follows: "I would like to call attention to the very unsatisfactory state of our criminal law, resulting in large part from the habit of setting aside the judgment of inferior courts on technicalities absolutely unconnected with the merits of the case, and where there is no attempt to show that there has been any failure of substantial justice. It would be well to enact a law providing something to the effect that: “No judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless, in the opinion of the court to which the application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' This is the provision suggested by Judge Amidon (40 Am. Law. Rev. 681), with the addition of the clause, “it shall affirmatively appear." Secretary Taft has proposed the following (15 Yale Law Jr. 1): "No judgment of the court below should be reversed except for an error which the court, after reading the entire evidence, can affirmatively say would have led to a different verdict." These suggestions of a legislative restriction upon the power of Appellate Courts to reverse the judgment of trial courts, indicate a widespread feeling that there are too many reversals that do not go to the substantial merits of the cases involved. Public attention is directed mainly to the reversal of criminal cases, but individuals in litigation are equally interested in the matter of the reversal of civil cases. Our own State has not failed to legislate with regard to both. Section 542 of our Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: "After hearing the appeal, the court must give judgment without regard to technical errors or defects or to |