no report in the matter; but those members of the com

mittee that I have seen cordially support the amendment of Mr. Fleischmann.

The President:

Does any other gentleman desire to be heard?

Roland Crangle, of Buffalo:

Mr. President, I do not know but that the moral effect upon the political parties of a report of such a committee, as is intended in this case, will probably be good. In no district, I think, more so than in the Eighth Judicial District, where I live, has the question of the selection of Judges been more carefully considered by the people at large, and it largely arose because of certain charges that were made against a certain Judge who holds an office in that district and was elected by the people there. These charges were preferred before this Association several years ago and this Association acted upon them by a very close vote; and, rightly or wrongly, a great many of the people of that district thought that this Association did not do, from a high moral point of view, looking at the judiciary as we ought to, what it should have done. I say, rightly or wrongly, they got that impression. The State Bar Association acted in that matter. The effect of that decision of this Association was talked of in the judicial district for two or three years until again the time came when Judges must be selected, four Judges, and that was this fall. The people, having it under close consideration and knowing that the judiciary is the force that is going to save us from all the isms and things that are now happening, they thought that the Bar Association could give them some advice in regard to it, and so an agitation was gotten up calling together the Bar Associations of the Eighth Judicial District. They came

from all the surrounding country and on a certain day they met in Buffalo. There must have been five hundred there. We had a discussion as to who should be the judicial nominees. The lawyers connected with the political parties held meetings beforehand and there were little cliques among them. Some wanted this man and some wanted that man. They had secret meetings before the great meeting came on, and there were candidates running around from office to office, and sending emissaries out for votes for themselves to help them as a matter of business and as a compliment that they should be named; but finally, the result of that meeting was that it was proposed that at least one member should be selected by this Bar Association. Was it so? No, the highest men selected, every one of them with one exception, were the men that the political machine had selected for the office. They were good men, I will admit, but the people did not think that the meeting accomplished the purpose for which it was called. They were expecting to get rid of some that they, the people, thought were not right. We have a good man I think to-day in the Eighth Judicial District. But the Bar Association took this action, and I believe it was not at all satisfactory to the people or to the lawyers who looked at the situation from a high, broad, moral plane. I do not think that three men, although it is said there are twenty-seven - the effect of the whole thing will be that three men from the district, because the other twenty-four will know nothing about what is happening in the Eighth Judicial District - they will take the report of the three men, and these three men, instead of coming out as they can do to-day in their individual capacity, will come out clothed with the prestige and influence of the great Bar Association of the State of New York. I do not say it probably will not be good,

I am not sure about it, but it is questionable to me and I really think I am opposed to the amendment. I think in the end it is better to leave it to the people.

J. Newton Fiero, of Albany:

Mr. President, it seems that we would accept without question or controversy the proposition that lawyers know better what lawyers would make a competent Judge than do their clients, that is to say, the people; that they are, by reason of their knowledge and experience with regard to their associates, better qualified to determine whether a man has the qualities and the qualifications to make a Judge. It ought to go without saying, and I think it dces, too, that lawyers have not to-day the influence which they might and should reasonably have in the selection of Judges. Does it need any argument by reason of the discussion and consideration of that subject during the last campaign in New York city? The question then comes, is it worth while for the Bar to make any effort in that direction? Must it abrogate its right and its duty in that respect because heretofore there have been failures, or is it incumbent upon the Bar represented by this Association to take such proper and appropriate action as may seem most likely to bring about the best result? A plan is presented. It has the approval of two committees. It may not be successful, as other plans have not been successful. Has any one a better, another or a different plan to suggest, anything that is more likely to be successful, that is more likely to be satisfactory than the one which is suggested, the selection of a committee to take up the matter of judicial candidates to determine whether or not any action ought, in the first instance, to be taken, and to act as leaders of public sentiment in connection with the matter if improper and incompetent candidates are

selected or presented? There is no difficulty about the situation which the gentleman from Brooklyn suggests. I think he is entirely right in the statement that lawyers alone cannot bring about such result as may be desirable in some cases, and that it is desirable that laymen should be associated. But should not the initiative come from the Bar and from this Association? And is the fact that the citizens generally should be associated with lawyers any reason why this Association should not appoint a committee and act through that committee, which is the only way in which it can act, because the very fact that the meeting of this Association is at a period of the year when there is no discussion with regard to the future candidates is a reason why the Association, as a whole, cannot act? I do not understand it is proposed to give absolute power and control in regard to this matter to the committee, but it is to act safely, sanely, reasonably, in connection with the matter, and to do that which it deems for the best interest of the Bar, and do it on behalf of the Association. Without another or better plan, it seems to me we ought to adopt it. A committee carefully selected would be of very great value to the Bar and to the public.

Fred E. Ackerman, of Poughkeepsie :

Mr. President, I think it is time that the State Bar Association gets out of politics. It has been in politics for the last two or three years, one year in regard to the increase of Judges in the Eighth District, and last fall a special committee was appointed apparently without any authority by this Association to investigate the judicial character of the candidates for the office of Justices of the Supreme Court in the Ninth Judicial District. I care nothing about the other districts, but the gentleman that was appointed as a member of that committee from Dutchess.

county, while a member of this Association I do not think he has ever been here, I do not remember of his being here recommended a man that is not a member of this Association, and did not mention the name, or give any reason for not mentioning the name, of the successful man on the Republican ticket, who was elected. I think we ought to leave politics alone. It may be all true, as Mr. Fiero says, that the lawyers ought to have something to say about the Judges; but if they undertake to have anything to say about the Judges they ought not to stab them in the back, but they ought to say why they are opposed to the nominations after they are made. It may be all right to work against the candidates before the nominations, but leave them alone afterwards. What was the result? This committee made a report which was published broadcast down in Dutchess county, and the gentleman who was nominated and elected upon the Republican ticket for the Supreme Court for the next fourteen years was not named. No one knew why. If they had said why his name was not mentioned, there might have been some good reason for leaving it off; but the committee did not mention him, and the man that filed that report was a particular friend of the candidate of the Democratic ticket and was very anxious to have him elected. I think it was entirely wrong, and I think that this proposed amendment to the Constitution should be defeated and we should go along as we have been going for the last thirty years very successfully and nicely.

Edward A. Sumner, of New York:

Mr. President, I did not come in time to hear all the remarks. I do not recall the proposed amendment. May I ask the Secretary to read it?

(The Secretary read the proposed amendment.)