« PreviousContinue »
some plan of that kind can be put into effect for localities in which Judges are to be elected, and possibly for the entire State, we would get an expression of the honest sentiment of the Bar. As a result, the two or three or possibly four candidates receiving the largest number of votes of members of the Bar should be made official candidates, placed on the ballot and treated as candidates for all purposes. This would not prevent political parties from afterward nominating the same men, or other men. But the law should give to the lawyers' candidates an equal standing with other candidates. By requiring them to be named in advance, and thus advising other parties before they take action, I think we should get nominations that would be of great benefit to the community. It would be difficult for other parties to ignore such nominations, and to name candidates not so approved by their legal brethren. Such nominations, by secret balloting, would be free from the suspicion which is involved in petitions for judicial candidates circulated among members of the Bar. Men sign these petitions knowing that their names will be seen, and do it either under fear of the consequences if they refuse, or in the hope of reward for supporting some particular candidate. The secrecy of such a ballot as I propose would remove that source of weakness. A man could cast his vote fearlessly for the two or three candidates he thought best fitted. I think it would be a great step in advance.
Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York:
Mr. President, if you will permit me, in order to make this clear beyond question, I would like to offer this in an amended form, which I am able to do after reading the resolution of Mr. Hand, which I did not have:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Selection of Candidates for Judicial Office be directed and empowered to communicate on behalf and in the name of this Association with the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and with any other organization, upon the subject of nominees and nominations to be made for the Court of Appeals and for Justices of the Supreme Court and for other judicial officers in the State and to arrange for a thorough and systematic investigation of the qualifications of Judges and lawyers for such nomination.
I want to say with reference to one point that Mr. Hand made that this resolution of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York was not limited to Judges in this department, but to other judicial officers than in this department, and I desire to call attention to that point because we feel in the City of New York that we are interested in the Judges elected in the other departments. We have got to recognize, gentlemen, that the Supreme Court of the State of New York is one great tribunal of justice for the entire State, and that you are interested in our Judges down here, as we are interested in your Judges up there, and that we wish to have this conference of the Bar of the City of New York with the Bar of the State of New York, and with other organizations, as to all the Judges of the Supreme Court throughout the State. Now, as to my friend, Mr. Hayes, who just spoke, I sympathize with him in a great many of his ideas. In a few minutes I am going to introduce a resolution as an amendment to the constitution, with reference to the Workmen's Compensation Act, which I suppose is specially on his mind, that hasn't anything to do with this question. Perhaps he and I may find on these committees some radicals that will
point out the error of absolute stand-patism, but nevertheless the Bar as a Bar should exercise its influence, and I move the resolution as I have just read it.
Charles A. Boston, of New York:
As you read it, its name would apply to the committee, whereas I fancy that you intended to mean the name of this Association.
Mr. Stetson :
Oh, yes, the name of the Association.
Are you ready for the resolution?
The resolution was duly adopted.
I think it may be useful if we hear the report of the Special Committee on Corporation Law before the adjournment for recess. Mr. Stetson is here and ready to present it.
Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York:
This report, Mr. President, has been circulated without the bill that was to be attached to it.
The idea of the Chair is, the report should be presented, but the discussion of it should take place after the recess.
The report has been circulated without the attachment of the bill therein referred to; that was because it was imprac
The bill this it is believed,
The bill was
ticable for the committee to agree upon the precise wording of the bill. That bill has since been formulated, it is in print and more than enough copies for all the members of the Association are now on the table. If gentlemen choose to take the bill they will find it in form for consideration. That bill slightly varies or differs from the bill that has been approved twice by this Association, last year and the year before. This is the fourth time that the measure has come up before this Association for approval, and on every previous occasion it has received approval. year has been slightly modified to meet, as every objection that has been made to it. introduced last winter and passed the Senate, but for some reason or other, perhaps because the session was not long enough, the Assembly did not get around to voting upon the question and so it failed of passing. Perhaps that may be just as well, because I think now we have got the bill finally in better shape and in the best possible shape. I shall call attention only to one thing in the report. I desire particularly to call your attention to the very important support that has been given to the measure by the Federal Commission upon Railroad Securities, consisting of President Hadley, Mr. Judson, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Meyer, in a report transmitted to Congress, December 8, 1911, with a letter of approval by the President. There has been no better statement or more complete statement of the desirability of such a measure than that set forth in the report of this Commission, which is printed upon pages 4, 5 and 6 of the present report. As you are quite competent to read that I shall not weary you or delay you longer by reference to this matter, and I would ask that you consider carefully the recommendations that have been made by that Commission, which I think will be quite
sufficient to deter the Association from our disapproving that which it has three times fully approved.
Perhaps the bill, which is a part of the report of the committee, better be read.
I think the members can read it during recess.
The bill appears to be rather long, and if the members will take the copies of the bill at the desk as they go out, we will now adjourn to two o'clock.
The following is the report:
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CORPORATION LAW
New York State Bar Association:
The undersigned, being the Special Committee on Corporation Law appointed originally by resolution of the Association in January, 1908 (pp. 43, 44, 196), and continued in 1909 (pp. 270-282), in 1910 (pp. 515-517) and in 1911, submit the following report:
The committee feels it a duty first to make record of the loss which has been sustained by the committee, the Association, the profession and the public, in the death in July, 1911, of Edward M. Shepard, from the outset a member of the committee and a vigorous supporter of this measure of reform.
The bill to amend the Corporation Law permitting the formation of certain business corporations having capital stock divided into shares without assignment thereto of any value in money and the issue of stock certificates repre