Mr. Sumner:

Mr. President, I took great pleasure in supporting our movement in New York city which has been spoken of here this afternoon. I am heartily sorry we were defeated. That was a movement undertaken by local lawyers. The point, it seems to me, made by my friend is in the same line. I am heartily and entirely with those gentlemen who have opposed this amendment, and unless I hear some better reason, I am going to vote against it myself for the reason stated by them. It seems to me if the Association, as a whole, were in a position to meet at a time of the year when they could pass upon this question it might safely be relegated to us, but we do not. Why not let the local Bar Associations, in the line suggested by Mr. Wheeler and as has been successfully done heretofore, attend to the local matters? I am opposed to the amendment and shall vote against it.

A. D. Wales, of Binghamton:

Mr. President, as debate has been going on, my mind has been first in favor of the plaintiff when I heard from him and for the defendant when I heard from the other fellow; but I am veering around to the position of the gentleman who last spoke, and this idea has occurred to me: it seems to be assumed that a committee appointed by the Bar Association would consider it with the proper intention. Now, I would like to ask, what assurance there is of that? A committee to act on a question of that kind and as suggested by the form of this amendment, should be a committee composed of men of the very highest courage, the very highest intelligence and extensive experience. Is there anything that guarantees us any such committee? Lawyers, as a class, when it comes to attacking the judiciary, are timid, and it does

seem to me that there is greater danger of abuse than of benefit.

Frank Harvey Field, of New York:

Mr. President, I want to suggest a slight amendment to the wording of the first section of this provision. I move that the word "especially" be dropped and the words "as far as possible" inserted at that point, so that it will read: "It shall be their duty as far as possible," etc. The section, as it reads now, would make it their duty to prevent, which, of course, is imposing upon them a pretty severe contract, and the word "especially," it seems to me, should be omitted. I desire, if the amendment is seconded

Simon Fleischmann, of Buffalo:

I accept it and second it.

Mr. Field:

I would like to say this word about the general subject. The local Bar Associations of the State have frequently attempted to take action in regard to nominations in their respective jurisdictions. The action of the local Bar Associations, as was the case in Buffalo, is apt to be swayed to a very great extent by local situations and local candidates, and for that very reason their work has not been effective. This is an attempt on the part of the State Bar Association to appoint a committee of three from each judicial district who shall take the reports that they may have from the various districts, considering them away from the influence of the local Associations, and try to arrive at a just decision and be of real benefit in the selection of Judges. It seems to me that if the State Bar Association has any function it ought to be able to cour

ageously undertake to exert an influence of this kind, and I believe that it can be made of very great service in the selection of Judges.

Mr. Fleischmann:

Mr. President, in view of the fact that these remarks become permanently recorded in our proceedings, I should feel derelict if I did not state that the interpretation placed by my esteemed friend, Mr. Crangle, upon that Buffalo meeting is, in my judgment, wholly erroneous and misleading. We had there in June, Mr. President and gentlemen, a meeting of the attorneys of the entire Eighth Judicial District, some three months before any political convention met at all, and there was a free vote among the members who attended, I think four hundred in number, a meeting of unprecedented size and interest for our district. There were a large number of attorneys voted for as expressing the preference of those there as to who should be the four candidates last fall, and one of them, upon whom we were all united, declined the nomination entirely, and the next four who received the highest number of votes at that meeting were nominated by the Republican, the dominant party, and elected. No Republican organization, or any other organization, so far as I have ever been able to learn or ever heard it charged, had anything to do with that meeting whatsoever. It was a great achievement for the Bar of the Eighth Judicial District, and I want that statement embalmed here with the other one.

Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York:

I agree, Mr. President, with the suggestions that have. been thrown out by some that the office of the Bar of the State, or of the locality, in influencing the nomination or

selection of Judges, is likely to be better performed by the Bar acting in the capacity of a critic or a suggestor rather than as a nominator. I have nothing but praise and appreciation for the association of lawyers who last year in New York, at great personal inconvenience and with patriotic devotion, undertook to present a number of candidates of impeccable character for selection by the people at the polls; and yet I always felt that it would be of doubtful success, at least if the lawyers ever stood up by themselves as a political party, because that is, after all, what the public at large consider them, in comparison with the great political parties. Therefore, I am wholly in sympathy with the present movement of having the Bar of the State act by way of suggestion and criticism rather than the origination of nominations. The question then comes, is there a place for the Bar of the State to act, and can it act efficiently otherwise than through this organization? One of the regrets, and perhaps the only source of regret which I feel with reference to the size and magnificence of this, the Empire State, is that by geography alone the members of our Bar are so far separated from each other that they cannot know each other, or rest in each other's confidence, as we can in smaller localities. That is one of the reasons why I have always undertaken, and shall always undertake, to be present at these meetings; and one of the reasons why I wish now to heartily express what is in the heart of all of us-my appreciation of the patriotic and devoted action of the President in bringing the luster of his great name and presence to the service of this Association is that the Bar of this State may know that we have here an organization which can speak for the Bar of the State. And upon what subject, Mr. President, can it speak more efficiently or more wisely than with ref

erence to the selection of the Judges throughout the State? I am moved to this by a little experience I had two years ago in which the question came up of the nomination of a Judge in a country district. I wrote to a gentleman of prominent political influence who had something to do. with the selection of Judges, asking not that any political action should be taken, but only that a Judge already on the Bench who had commended himself to the public, should not be rejected for renomination without due consideration. This gentleman wrote back that he thought that this was a matter that was beyond the concern of the Bar in the city of New York, to which I replied I should never consider it was beyond the concern of a member of the Bar of the city of New York to ascertain and scrutinize and to speak concerning the election of any Judge in the State of New York, certainly not as long as those Judges. were continually coming to our very city to administer our local courts and to sit in our Appellate Divisions. Therefore, the time has been reached, under the extension of our judicial system and the assignments of Judges, that every district in this State is interested in the selection and character of the Judge in every other district in this State, and I know of no way in which any voice can be raised efficiently to represent the sentiment of the Bar upon this subject except through this organization. If any gentleman knows any better way, I will follow him gladly in the adoption of that way but at present there is no way or place through which the lawyers of the State can know each other better than through this Association. So that I am entirely in agreement with the suggestion that has been made by the committee. The only question that I have is this, whether the committee designated is large enough. Three from each district makes twenty-seven. I should think that for the purpose of avoiding confusion