very subject. I was called to Philadelphia to testify as an expert on the value of legal services in the State of New York in a litigation where I had been counsel and where the litigation had lasted in one law suit fourteen years. The Judge on the trial down there, and all the Pennsylvania lawyers engaged in it, were felicitating themselves on the immense superiority of the Pennsylvania practice in that they had no Code, and that they disposed of cases so rapidly owing to the respect with which they treated their Judges. In that particular case the plaintiff, a lawyer from the State of New York, was allowed to testify for about a day and a half, and probably one-quarter of his testimony was absolutely inadmissible. I was given carte blanche to give my opinion on what the other witnesses had testified to, to testify on judgment of matters that had not been proved before the jury at all, and almost from the beginning to the end of the trial, three or four days, there was not an objection interposed. I said to those gentlemen afterwards, "You may felicitate yourselves upon your system, but I happen to know something about the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. It is the most drastic instrument against railroad discriminations, railroad favoritism, trusts, illegal business by common carriers and corporations that there is in the United States, and it lies there a dead letter, killed by judicial discretion. We have hard work getting the law in the State of New York, I will admit that. I deplore the delays as much as anybody. The Constitution of the State of New York is a live instrument, but if it had any such beneficent clauses in it as those contained in the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania it would not lie there a dead letter, and I believe that is what you invite yourselves to if you propose to hand yourselves over to the tender mercies

of a trial Judge with no law to hold him anywhere. I have, in the course of my practice, been called upon to practice against some of those powerful organizations, and I thank my stars that I can appeal to the decision of the Court for the law that I relied on and that I need not wait to have a higher tribunal say whether or not there had been some mistake made in the ultimate result. We need all the law we have got to control the trial Judge. Why, it is only three or four days ago that I spoke in admiration of a distinguished Judge who had written a very radical opinion against railroad rebates in a higher Court and a lawyer from the same town said, "Yes, but if you go before that trial Judge trying a negligence case he will charge about this way. He will say: The defendant has placed upon the stand four or five of its employees who were witnesses of this accident, the only witnesses that they could produce. It is for you to say did they acquit themselves creditably? The plaintiff has also sworn to an inconsistent account. You have a right to consider his interest in the case; of course that is so with all the witnesses, but do you believe the plaintiff?'" Why, I think our amendment should be that we have one of these phonographs to take the tone of the Judge, and that we should except to his tone.

The Chairman:

The question is on the motion of Mr. Hodge to refer this matter to the Committee on Law Reform.

Frank Harvey Field, of New York:

Mr. Chairman, the suggestion is made here, as the Committee on Law Reform has so many matters before it, that a matter of this importance should go to a special committee of nine, and I move to amend to that effect.

The Chairman:

I heartily approve of that on behalf of the Committee on Law Reform.

Everett P. Wheeler, of New York:

I accept that.

The Chairman:

Do you accept it, Mr. Hodge?

J. Aspinwall Hodge, of New York:

No.

The Chairman:

Then the question is upon Mr. Field's amendment that the matter be referred to a special committee of nine.

E. T. Lovatt, of Tarrytown:

Mr. Chairman

The Chairman:

I can't allow discussion pending the vote.

Mr. Lovatt:

I ask for a roll call so that when my name comes I can give an excuse for voting.

The Chairman:

There is nothing in the Constitution or By-laws that allows that. A rising vote is in order.

Mr. Lovatt:

I rise to a question of privilege.

The Chairman:

The gentleman is out of order until this vote is disposed of. I will not entertain a motion on any other question.

Mr. Lovatt:

I bow to the gavel.

The question was then put to a rising vote and the Secretary announced 46 in favor and 10 against.

The Chairman:

The question now is on the reference; shall the matter be referred to a committee of nine?

E. T. Lovatt, of Tarrytown:

Mr. Chairman, before you put that motion I want to say a word. Am I in order?

The Chairman:

You are in order.

Mr. Lovatt:

I reciprocate by saying the Chair is likewise. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion I wanted to make and which is probably timely now, was as to how that committee should be appointed. I would like to understand thoroughly the motion before the house, for I have something to say about it.

The Chairman:

The motion before the house is the amendment that a committee of nine be appointed by the Chair for the purpose of considering this question. That brings us back to the original amendment that it should go to the committee of nine. That brings us back to the original question. Shall it be read? The question now is shall this matter be referred to a committee of nine to be appointed by the President of the Association?

Mr. Lovatt:

I am opposed to this proposition to take it away from the Law Reform Committee.

The Chairman:

That was passed upon by the other vote.

Mr. Lovatt:

Not according to your statement to me; the question was whether it should be referred.

The Chairman:

Whether it shall be referred at all.

Mr. Lovatt:

Yes, that is what I am coming to. I am opposed to its being referred, and the reason why I am opposed to it is that a reference of such an important matter as is now under advisement should not be taken out of the proper channel that is duly named for the consideration of such a question. With great respect to the gentlemen who have advocated the proposed amendment, and its importance has been manifested by what has been said on both sides here, it should not be taken away from our regular committee, whichever committee is the one that should. consider that matter. It should not be left to a committee appointed either by the Chair or by the Association, and therefore I am opposed to its being specially referred out of its ordinary channel.

Lewis E. Griffith, of Troy:

Mr. Chairman, I move to lay the whole matter on the table.

E. T. Lovatt, of Tarrytown:

I second the motion.