The President: I understand Mr. Leavitt's amendment is seconded, and the question is on adding to the proposed amendment the words proposed by Mr. Leavitt. John Brooks Leavitt, of New York: It shall be the duty of such committee to ascertain the sentiment of the Bar in the locality of each candidate in respect to the qualifications of such candidate. My idea is to throw a safeguard around the committee. A Member: Do you think that necessary, Mr. President? The President: I have no opinion about it. Frank Harvey Field, of New York: I desire to express one view on the question of the amendment of Mr. Leavitt. I think that this committee will be forced by the very duty they have to undertake to ascertain the feeling of the local Bar Association and the local Bar. If we have a provision of this kind in the Constitution itself, it seems to me that the local Bar Associations which are most influenced by personalities will think they have more to say in the deliberations of this general committee than we think they ought to have, perhaps, and it seems to me it would be an evil in that respect. The President: The question is on the adoption of Mr. Leavitt's amendment to add the clause proposed by him to the proposed amendment of the committee. Those in favor of Mr. Leavitt's amendment will please say aye. The motion to amend was lost. The President: The question now is on the amendment proposed by the committee. Edward A. Sumner, of New York: Mr. President, I rise to a question of information before the main question is put. Is our action this afternoon, if this amendment to the Constitution be adopted, final under our Constitution, or must the next meeting of the Association pass upon it also? The President: I understand it is final and effective if adopted this afternoon. Gentlemen, are you ready for the question? Roland Crangle, of Buffalo: Mr. President, may I for a moment have an opportunity of replying to a statement Mr. Fleischmann made in which it appears we disagree about a statement that I made? In regard to the meeting which was called in the city of Buffalo for the Eighth Judicial District, Mr. Fleischmann is right in saying there were no political parties that had nominated any of the judges, and that there was one man who received the highest vote and who, it was known well beforehand, would not accept the nomination if he received it. The four highest after him were the four men that, during all the summer, the political organizations had made up their minds through the public press they were going to nominate, and the members of the Bar picked out those four men of that party, the men that the organization had picked out in the summer. That cannot be denied by Mr. Fleischmann. The President: The question is on the adoption of this proposed amendment. Roland Crangle, of Buffalo: Can the Constitution be amended by a majority vote? The Secretary: The Constitution says, article 22: "It can be amended only by a two-thirds vote of the members present at a meeting of the Association after notice of the proposed amendment, subscribed by at least ten members, shall have been given at the next previous meeting," etc. The President: The gentlemen in favor of the adoption of this amendment will please rise and stand until they are counted by the Secretary; it requires a two-thirds vote. The vote as announced by the Secretary was ayes 54, noes 28. The President: The amendment seems to be lost. Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York: Mr. President, this is not a matter, it seems to me, which should be disposed of on technicalities. It is not necessarily a part of the Constitution of this Association.. It is quite apparent a very large majority of the Association thinks it desirable. I therefore move the same amendment as a resolution. The President: If any gentleman desires to have it reconsidered at the next meeting of the Association he can move it in the same or some other form, giving notice to-day. The next business in order is the discussion of Mr. Page's paper. The Secretary: We have another amendment to the Constitution concerning which notice has been given. It is an amendment to article 18 of the Constitution providing: "Each county, city or local Bar Association of this State may annually appoint delegates, not exceeding three in number, to the next meeting of this Association; such delegates, if not regular members of this Association, shall be entitled to all the privileges of membership at and during the said meeting, except that of voting." I move the adoption of this amendment. The President: The question is on the adoption of this proposed amendment. The Secretary: The object of this amendment is to permit a representation from county and local Bar Associations in this body. Frank Harvey Field, of New York: I second the motion made. The motion was duly carried and the amendment adopted. The President: The next business is, if no discussion is called for on Mr. Page's paper, a discussion on the other question which was suspended to give room for Mr. Page's paper. If no one wishes to discuss that, the question is on the resolution embodying the President's suggestion as to new trials, the resolution in the form proposed by Mr. Wheeler and which he so ably presented. Before that discussion goes on, I would like to say that as I have some urgent calls upon my time for the residue of the afternoon, I will ask Mr. Fiero to be good enough to take the chair. J. Newton Fiero, of Albany, in the chair. Mr. Fiero: Discussion is in order, if there is any further discussion, upon the resolution of Mr. Wheeler. Will you state the substance of it, Mr. Wheeler? Everett P. Wheeler, of New York: The motion was that it be referred to the Committee on Law Reform to prepare an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure embodying the substance of the reform in the matter of appeals contained in the amendment proposed by the President. Lewis E. Griffith, of Troy: Mr. Chairman, to my mind there is no necessity for such an amendment. The laws are adequate and sufficient, and those who have had experience in the trial of cases and are in touch with the rulings of the Court of Appeals of this State will soon discover there is no necessity for such a rule. Section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: "After hearing the appeal, the Court will give judgment, without regard to technical errors or defects or to exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties." In the case of the People v. Hall (169 N. Y.) this rule was rigidly followed. In the case of the People v. Gallagher (in 174 N. Y.), which was a murder trial wherein the defendant was charged with the crime of murder, and tried in Cayuga county, and in which case |