First Vice-President Albert Hessberg took the chair and held it during the remainder of the day's session.

There was a discussion on the question of adopting the amendments to the constitution, as noticed during the session of last year. The question was not noticed in the regular call for the meeting, and, as the constitution requires such course, the consideration of the matter was necessarily put over until the next session.

In the afternoon the amendments to the constitution presented last year were adopted. The most important strikes out the clause which requires that candidates for admission to the association shall have practiced law in this State for ten years.

The report of Henry A. Peckham, as treasurer, was read and approved. It shows amount of cash on hand, $5,253.43; disbursements as per cash-book, $4,356; balance on deposit, current account, $897.43; number of members who have paid dues for 1900, 659; number of members who paid dues in arrears, 59; number of life members, 79; increase in number of life members, 5; number of resignations, 11; number of deaths reported to treasurer, 14.

Adjournment was taken until 2.30 o'clock, when Judge Finch gave the president's annual address. His subject was "Legal Education."

Judge Finch's address was a plea to the Court of Appeals, which has general supervision over admission to the bar, to raise the standard of preliminary preparation to study law and to increase the terms of study. He advocated preliminary education equivalent to that of a four years' course in a High School, and four years' study at least in the case of students who study wholly in law offices, and three-year courses for students who study in law schools.

He spoke of the condition under which lawyers were made in past years, which he said were wholly inadequate, and attributed the success of the able lawyers not to the prevailing system of study, but in spite of it they won their way by the most persistent and industrious labor. But the one good and useful element in the old system has wholly disappeared. In general, under existing conditions, the student in the law office copies nothing and sees nothing. The stenographer and the typewriter have monopolized what was his work. Conditions have changed. The law office is no longer a sufficient school. The future of the bar is in the hands of the law schools. It will rise or fall in learning and ability, in the scope and range of its intelligence, in the measure of its integrity and the tone of its morality as the law schools rise or fall. We must face the new condition. The bar must watch the law schools.

"I believe the time has come," he said, "when the court of last resort to which has been intrusted the formation of rules for admission to the bar, should amend those rules by requiring a complete High School course of four years or its equivalent as a minimum of preliminary preparation for the

study of law and a course of three years in a law school or of four years in a law office as a condition of examination for the bar. There are no members of the profession more anxious than the judges of the Court of Appeals to see the standard of legal education elevated and the material of the bar strengthened and improved, but they feel it to be their duty not to legislate in advance of the public and professional sentiment and to move slowly and with care. A low standard of preparation on the part of the student compels a low standard of instruction on the part of the instructor. The teacher must get down to the level of the taught. So it is for teacher and scholar that I urge the wisdom of a more thorough preparation and a longer course of study. If the changes I advise do tend to lessen the number of applicants for admission to the bar I regard such result as a benefit and not a harm. The deterrent effect of those changes will keep out no young man who is fit to succeed, but will make stronger and better men. The change will tend to shut the door on the idle, the lazy and the unprepared. The members of the medical profession have already shut that door and locked it."

Judge Finch declared that law schools should aevote more attention to practice than is commonly done. Students should be fairly skilled in the use of the tools with which their work is to be done. They must not be left with a good case and a full and studious comprehension of it to fall, nevertheless, over some section sprung from the depths of an ocean of code.

Following Judge Finch's address these papers were read or submitted: "The Uses and Abuses of Corporations," by the Hon. Walter S. Logan, of New York; "State Control of the Police," by Prof. Charles P. Norton, of Buffalo; The New Constitution of the United States," by John H. Hopkins, Esq., of Rochester.

were

The following officers and committees elected, the chairman of the nominating committee, Hon. Walter S. Logan, being instructed to cast one vote for all as named in his report:

President, William B. Hornblower, New York. Vice-presidents, First district, Charles W. Dayton, New York; Second district, Macgrane Coxe, Southfield; Third district, Franklin M. Danaher, Albany; Fourth district, John I. Gilbert, Malone; Fifth district, Elon R. Brown, Watertown; Sixth district, John P. Grant, Stamford; Seventh district, DeMerville Page, Hornellsville; Eighth district, John G. Milburn, Buffalo; secretary, Frederick E. Wadhams, Albany; corresponding secretary, George Lawyer, Albany; treasurer, Albert Hessberg, Albany.

Cullinan, J. D. McMahon, Russell S. Johnson; Sixth district, Lyon J. Arnold, Robert T. Turner, Howard D. Newton; Seventh district, W. Martin Jones, Charles A. Hawley; Eighth district, Seward A. Simons, Herbert P. Bissell, William L. Marcy. Committee on Law Reform First district, Walter S. Logan, Charles E. Hughes, Donald McLean; Second district, Charles A. Collin, Robert F. Wilkinson, James G. Graham, Jr.; Third district, J. Newton Fiero, John J. Linson, James W. Eaton; Fourth district, Edward P. White, Louis M. Brown, Andrew J. Nellis; Fifth district, W. C. Prescott, A. H. Sawyer, H. J. Cookinham; Sixth district, George M. Diven, Albert F. Gladding, John E. Smith; Seventh district, Irvin W. Near, Elbridge, L. Adams, Nathaniel Foote; Eighth district, Adelbert Moot, Leroy Parker, Frank C. Ferguson.

Committee on Admissions - First district, S. L. H. Ward, John DeWitt Warner, John S. Wise, George M. Wright; Second district, Henry T. Dykman, C. W. H. Arnold, William P. Fiero, Irving Brown; Third district, George E. Green, A. Page Smith, Arthur C. Connelly, Justin Kellogg; Fourth district, Louis M. King, Charles C. Lester, H. V. Borst, R. Bronk Fish; Fifth district, David Bearup, S. Mortimer Coon, Irving R. Devendorf, Adam J. Smith; Sixth district, E. H. Hanford, George B. Curtis, James W. Barnum, H. C. Mandeville; Seventh district, Edward Harris, Morrison H. McMath, John D. Teller, Milo M. Acker; Eighth district, Edward E. Coatsworth, Loran L. Lewis, Jr., Adolph Rebadow, James I. Fowler. Committee on Grievances First district, Job E.

-

Hedges, Rudolf Dulon, Alexander R. Gulick; Second district, William F. O'Neil, Martin Heermance, William H. Wood; Third district, Learned Hand, George H. Fitts, John W. Searing; Fourth district, Frederick G. Paddock, C. W. Van Kirk, Clarence W. Smith; Fifth district, A. B. Steele, John N. Carlisle, John D. Henderson; Sixth district, A. B. Packer, Henry S. Redfield, E. W. Cushman; Seventh district, John Desmond, Frank W. Parsons, Frank D. Wright; Eighth district, J. H. Metcalf, Simon Fleischman, Clinton B. Gibbs.

Committee on Legal Biography - First district, Francis E. Laimbeer, James D. McClelland; Second district, John F. Brennan, Frederick Barnard; Third district, Joseph A. Lawson, George W. Daw; Fourth district, Edgar A. Spencer, John H. Burke; Fifth district, Charles N. Bulger, Charles J. Palmer; Sixth district, Alexander Andrews, Nor

tion. They are clearly defined and well understood. Police powers affect all sorts of men and women in their lives, homes, property, relations to their cities and to the State. A moment's thought, too, will show that their administration calls for the exercise and operation of powers, some of which belong distinctly to the State and should be exercised by the State alone, and some of which would be much more properly exercised by the municipalities alone. In other words, the power to legislate and make regulations for carrying out these general police powers should be, as, in fact, it is, vested in the State so far as the matter affects the people generally, and in the municipality so far as it affects a particular locality. And it is a fair conclusion from this that the police officers in executing their powers should be deemed officers both of the State and municipality, because the general scope of their duties calls for the enforcement of public regulations, both of the State and of the municipality.

"The tendency of the Court of Appeals has been to prevent an interference by the State with local self-government. This tendency of the Court of Appeals reflects popular sentiment. When it was announced in the middle of November that the Ellsworth bill of 1899, or some form of it, was likely again to be brought before the legislature, there were protests from all parts of the State. Much of this was, of course, political scolding, but much also was due to a belief that home rule was the only safe theory upon which government could be administered. Such was the best public thought of sixty-five years ago.

"Local self-government was the primer of liberty. It made the American what he was. It insured a future for the land of administration of government economically administered and without corruption or fraud, because every citizen made the community's business his business, and the community's money his money. Local selfgovernment would be a working theory of administration which would bear the test of time well, because the evident principle was that every one was the best judge of what concerns himself alone and the most proper person to supply his own wants. should choose its own administrators, because they And, therefore, it was evident that each locality best understood the needs of that community, were in closest touch with it, understood it and were understood by it.

"It seems incredible that within fifty years a change should come in conditions. A foreign

istration. Hence city government is declared to be a failure, because it is foolish, corrupt and expensive. City government is a new problem. The cities' relation to the State is not understood. All that we know is that in general their working is very unsatisfactory and that American cities are the worst governed cities in the world.

"The police administration of great cities by local governments are under the ban of this general condemnation and a part of the general failure. Home rule has been undermined and weakened as a foundation for the true theory of administration. The system of police administration, according to the strict doctrine of home rule, has been actually tried and found wanting. On the other hand, a system founded on State control has been in operation elsewhere for many years and has received a qualified approval."

Discussion of the following questions, in connection with the report of the committee on law reform, took place at the second day's session:

First. What changes, if any, are desirable, with reference to the jurisdiction and practice of the federal courts?

Second. What action should be taken by the association, with reference to the revision of the code and general laws proposed by the joint committee of the legislature?

Third. What action can be taken by the legislature or the courts to prevent fraudulent divorces? Fourth. Should the association take any action with reference to the proposed uniform divorce law recommended by the commissioners of thirteen States at their annual meeting in August last? After discussion, the subject of divorce legislation was referred back to the committee on law reform, without definite action. The debate indicated that, as to the specific question of prevention of fraud, sentiment was much divided, whether publicity should be required, and even whether the New York law stands in need of any amendment. On the subject of a uniform divorce law, the discussion indicated that there is little, if any, hope of inducing this State to co-operate with other States in adopting a uniform law.

On this subject, the remarks of Rt. Rev. William C. Doane, Episcopal Bishop of Albany, who

has made a special study of the subject, are of interest. Bishop Doane said:

Deprived, to my great regret, of the pleasure of listening to the discussion and taking part in the debate on this whole subject of uniformity in the law regulating divorce, I have great pleasure in taking advantage of the privilege most courteously accorded me of dealing, at the distance of a pen-handle, with the very grave question before the association. Two years ago, when I first saw the delusion of this proposal, I said to the convention of the diocese of Albany:

tain of their details; requiring a residence in good faith for a year; allowing no divorce for any cause previous to residence, unless it be a cause in the State whence the petitioner comes; nor for cause arising in the State, without two years' delay; the divorce to be granted only on trial in open session, and the decree to be inoperative for six months, if the defendant fail to appear. The defect, which is exactly the danger of any uniform law, is the suggestion to allow remarriage to either party; and the addition to the one cause possibly permissible of four other causes. The publishing of banns, the requirement of witnesses knowing the parties and known to the clergyman. the consent of parents, publicity of ceremony — all these are helpful."

It will not seem ungenerous, if, in justice to a somewhat public and very pronounced position on this whole subject, I guard at the outset my warm approval of the proposed act to establish a uniform law relative to divorce procedure and divorce from the bonds, or, as I should say, from the bond of marriage. Quite apart from my intense convictions, as a Christian man and a clergyman, that the bond of matrimony can only be dissolved by death, and that only the scriptural point of view, as a 1 cause for the legal dissolution of marriage, I have the deepest feeling as a man, on purely human and social, and civil, and legal grounds, that the old English law is sound, which provided for separation from bed and board, with no right of remarriage, and knew no other meaning of the word divorce." I cannot, therefore, but regret the sweeping statement of section 7 of the proposed act, that divorce" throughout the act means always "divorce from the bonds of marriage." In this case, as so often, in my judgment, "the old is better." As it is written in the 107th Canon Ecclesiastical of England (until forty years ago the law of the State as well):

"In all sentences pronounced only for divorce and separation a thoro et mensa, there shall be a caution and restraint inserted in the act of said sentence, that the parties so separated shall live chastely and continently; neither shall they, during each other's life, contract matrimony with any other person. And, for the better observation of this last clause, the said sentence of divorce shall not be pronounced until the party or parties requiring the same have given good and sufficient caution and security into the court that they will not any way break or transgress the said restraint or prohibition."

This is merely my caveat. Speaking as a layman to lawyers, I feel compelled to speak cautiously.

I have learned long ago that to wait for perfection, to be content with nothing but just what suits one's own individual conviction, is to sit on the bank until the stream runs dry. Archbishop Benson's saying seem to me wise, and true, and

The bill does not, of course, represent my ideal, but it is a careful collection of points which could be claimed, which it would be indecent to refuse, and which would make a considerable difference about our powers of dealing rightly with cases. Gain that platform, and it would be a footing for more ideal measures. I do not want the best to be any more the deadly enemy of the good. We climb through degrees of comparison."

Get the best possible," Governor Roosevelt said, “when perfect best is not attainable." I am quite ready to welcome this new proposal as the best possible now, and as a climb, and a good steep climb, by comparison with the existing condition of things. It is not my habit to use strong language of a certain kind, and when I do, I put it in quotation marks, if I use it at all. The advocates of absolute divorce are in the habit of speaking of an ill-matched marriage as "hell on earth." Within this month I was accosted on my own street in this city by a sranger, who said: "I do not know you personally, Bishop, but I have read a good deal of what you have written against divorce, and I want to thank you for it. I hope you will succeed. I was divorced from my wife, and during all the time of our separation I lived in hell. Now we have been remarried and I am perfectly happy. I hope you will win in your fight against divorce." This is the case in a nutshell. The temptation of a divorce easily obtained, yielded to in a moment of hasty irritation, leading, perhaps, to a life-long wretchedness.

Underneath the whole question lie two sacred and serious facts, solemnity of marriage and the sanctity of home. Anything that tends to diminish the one or destroy the other strikes at the very foundations of society. To make divorce easy is to put a premium upon hasty and thoughtless marriages, to suggest the easy and evil way out of disagreements and differences which patience and time would heal, to tempt men and women to cut with a sharp sword of separation a knot which would naturally be untied if the sword were not at hand. In dealing with the difficult problem before them, the committee have not aimed at the impossible, but have faced existing conditions in the most practical way. Whether consciously or by the thinking alike of great minds, I do not know, the provisions of the act hark back to the old canon law of England three hundred years ago:

may be (as far as is possible) sifted out by the deposition of witnesses, and other lawful proofs and evictions; and that credit be not given to the sole confession of the parties themselves, howsoever taken upon oath, either within or without the court.

No sentence shall be given either for separation a thoro et mensa, or for annulling of pretended matrimony, but in open court, and in the seat of justice."

The features of the proposed legislation which seem to me most valuable, are the requirement for a bona fide permanent residence, in effect and in intention, in the State where the suit is brought; the limitation of grounds of divorce to the law of the State in which the case arose; the requirement of the hearing before the court in open session, and the restriction in regard to the personal service of process upon the defendant. Such legislation generally adopted would make our courts cease to be "schools for scandal," and would tend largely to remove from America the evil repute which has come upon her for loose methods of dealing with this matter of paramount importance to society and humanity. More than this, using the word scandal in its original sense, it would take away from many erring and misguided feet "a stumbling block and occasion to falı.”

It may surprise this distinguished body of lawyers to be told that, according to an unknown correspondent of mine from Oklahoma territory, few of them are competent, and I am absolutely incompetent, to deal with this important question at all. This gentleman writes me that "no man is capable of giving advice about marriage until he has been married at least twice, and that no man is competent to advise against divorce until he has had at least one, and four is better."

I have not ventured to approach this distinguished body of gentlemen with a brief, or a plea, or an argument. My only thought is to add whatever weight my name may have, personally or officially, to the side of the scale which shall preponderate towards the commendation of the committee's proposal. Circumstances have forced me into a careful study of the subject and into an unsought notoriety in connection with it. And I am glad to go on record everywhere and always as favoring all measures that appeal, on the grounds of justice and mercy, of the purity and security of family life, of the protection of men and women against themselves, of the recognition of the supreme dignity of marriage, to legislatures and courts for the wise making and the honest administration of uniform and good laws.

The following is the text of the proposed act: An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other States relative to divorce procedure and divorce from the bonds of marriage.

Section I. No divorce shall be granted for any

cause arising prior to the residence of the complainant or defendant in this State, which was not a ground for divorce in the State where the cause

arose.

Sec. 2. No person shall be entitled to a divorce for any cause arising in this State, who has not had actual residence in this State for at least one year next before bringing suit for divorce, with a bona fide intention of making this State his or her! permanent home.

Sec. 3. No person shall be entitled to a divorce for any cause arising out of this State, unless the complainant or defendant shall have resided within this State for at least two years next before bringing suit for divorce with a bona fide intention of making this State his or her permanent home. Sec. 4. No person shall be entitled to a divorce, unless the defendant shall have been personally served with process, if within this State, or, if without this State, shall have had personal notice duly proved and appearing of record, or shall have entered an appearance in the case; but, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the complainant does not know the address nor the residence of the defendant and has not been able to ascertain either, after reasonable and due in quiry and search, continued for six months after suit brought, the court or judge in vacation may authorize notice by publication of the pendency of the suit for divorce to be given in manner provided by law.

Sec. 5. No divorce shall be granted solely upon default, nor solely upon admissions by the pleadings, nor except upon hearing before the court in

open session.

Sec. 6. After divorce either person may marry again, but in cases where notice has been given by publication only, and the defendant has not appeared, no decree or judgment for divorce shall become final or operative until six months after hearing and decision.

Sec. 7. Wherever the word divorce" occurs in this act, it shall be deemed to mean divorce from the bonds of marriage.

Sec. 8. All acts and parts of act inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

The remaining recommendations presented by the committee on law reform were adopted as printed.

A resolution was adopted recommending to the legislature that an appropriation be made for enlarging and repairing the attorneys' waiting-room of the Court of Appeals. It was introduced by John Cuneen.

The executive committee organized, with Jere miah Kitch as chairman, and Charles J. Buchanan, of this city, secretary. During the afternoon it recommended that the president appoint a committee to arrange for the entertainment of attorneys at the Pan-American Exposition.

John Marshall to the bench as chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals.

On the motion of Judge Franklin M. Danaher, it was resolved that the papers read at the session and printed in the minutes should be regarded as the expression of individual opinion and not as binding upon the association, unless adopted as such.

The secretary of the executive committee and the secretary of the association, with the retiring president, were appointed to compile the addresses made at the meeting.

The following resolution was adopted. It was offered by W. Martin Jones:

Resolved, That the New York State Bar Association cordially approves the recommendations made by Governor Odell in his annual message to the legislature for material amendment of the corporation laws of the State and emphasized by the esteemed ex-president of the association, Hon. Walter S. Logan, in his address on the subject of corporations, delivered before the association on the first day of its present session; and,

Resolved, That the matter of proposed legislation, on the lines suggested by the governor in his message and by Mr. Logan in his address, be referred to the committee on law reform, with instruction to use its influence and to extend its assistance, as far as practicable, to secure such legislation as shall tend to make the State of New York a commonwealth sought for, instead of avoided, by those seeking to promote legitimate commercial and industrial enterprise by proper corporate organization, for the purpose of carrying out such suggestions."

During the morning a letter was read from Ernest T. Hargrave, a prominent Englishman, who is in this country in behalf of international arbitration.

In pursuance with its suggestions, the committee on international arbitration was made permanent, and its title changed to "the development of international law." To the names of Messrs. Jones, Whittaker and Veeder, were added Frederick W. Holls and Walter S. Logan.

On Tuesday evening, at Harmanus Bleecker Hall, before a distinguished audience, Minister Wu Ting-Fang delivered an address on Chinese Jurisprudence," which is printed elsewhere in this issue of the JOURNAL.

The minister wore a yellow silk tunic which reached almost to his knees. Over it was a loose, sleeveless vest of light blue silk. Upon his head was a black silk, jeweled skull cap.