teacher and jurist. He has been active in that work for the American Bar Association, a working member of the committee, and has accomplished more than any man living. I move, in recognition of these facts and his courtesy in coming before us with this illuminating paper, that he be made an honorary member of the Association. (Applause.)

The President:

Gentlemen, you have heard the motion of Mr. Fiero that Governor Baldwin be made an honorary member of this Association. All in favor of this motion will signify it by rising. The motion is unanimously agreed to and Governor Baldwin is elected.

Discussion upon the subject of Governor Baldwin's very interesting address is now in order. Does any member of the Association wish to make any remarks at this time?

J. Noble Hayes, of New York:

Mr. President, it seems to me, after this very able address by Governor Baldwin, it is well for us to consider and have Governor Baldwin know and take back word to Connecticut what efforts we have made in this State and are making toward judicial reform. The law is naturally an intricate and complicated system according to the customs of the people in the community in which it is administered, because it is a system of enforcing customs, and a custom which does for one community, a small community, in a business way, is not adequate for the needs of a great commercial community; so that we must look for the special needs of the community in which the system of laws is to be applied. The great trouble with the legal reformers, it seems to me, is that they proceed without regard to a due investigation of the facts. Often legal reformers do not

examine the facts, or see what the conditions are, and we have such a mass of material here in this State to deal with that it is very difficult to ascertain the facts without investigations. One of the first things, it seems to me, that we have to study is the instruments of justice, and by that I mean the Judges, and, if you please, the officers of the Courts, the lawyers at the Bar, their character, the jurors who try the cases and the ministerial officers. We have schemes here in relation to the selection of Judges, we have other schemes to improve the type of jurors and elevate the Bar, and all that. Those particular measures, it seems to me, lie at the root of the whole matter. We had a pretty careful investigation in the year 1902 and '04 by the Laws Delay Commission. We ascertained the facts at that time, and one of the chief recommendations that we made, that everybody agreed to apparently, but which we have not been able to carry out, was that we should establish a system of publishing judicial statistics every year, so that we might know the facts and, in that way, be able to go about our reforms intelligently, in imitation of the English method, by which they publish their annual statistics, which are very complete, and they know exactly where they are at all the time. The Laws Delay Commission made eleven recommendations and it seems to me a great deal of the discussion we are having here about the general scheme centers around those recommendations, and the situations have not been changed a bit. Among other things that we wanted to adopt in the way of procedure, were those methods that referred to the preliminary preparation of cases before they came to trial in Courts of justice, and we recommended the adoption of "Order 14," I think it was called, and the "Summons for Direction," two methods by which the preliminaries of every trial were settled before officers known

as Masters over there, but we called them Commissioners. We have had those measures before the Legislature ever since. The Laws Delay Commission has gone out of existence, and we cannot make any progress apparently in that direction for want of the interest of the Bar. It seems to me that one of the first things in all these judicial reforms is to ascertain what we need, what the facts are, and what has been done, and then to pursue some systematic course. I just throw this out by way of general suggestion. Governor Baldwin has made the observation that they are getting along well without a jury system in Connecticut. The reports from England are that the jury system is no less popular than it was, and if we should undertake in this State to impair the jury system in any way, I think we should raise up a great body of opposition. At this time it seems to me when there is so much impatience with the Courts, as our President expressed it, that we should be subjected to much more criticism in the community at large, and the laity would be more intolerant of lawyers and law if we should in any way interfere with the popular branch of our judicial system which requires a jury to assist in the administration of the law; and I believe that is one of the things that we should cling to with the utmost tenacity. For jurors are propaganda of law and order in a State. As to questions of procedure, we shall work them out after a while, if we have some continuity and don't forget what has been done in the past.

The President:

Any further remarks to be made on this subject at this time, otherwise we will pass to the next order of business. Mr. Wilcox, I believe, has not returned.

The Secretary:

We will, if you please, take up Mr. Leavitt's report of the Committee on Proposed Legislation relative to the Commitment and Discharge of Criminal Insane.

The President:

Yes.

John Brooks Leavitt, of New York, presented the report of the committee as follows:

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE COMMITMENT AND DISCHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL INSANE

To the New York State Bar Association:

The Committee on the Commitment and Discharge of the Criminal Insane respectfully begs to submit its third annual report.

As to its former reports in favor of an amendment of the practice in habeas corpus proceedings, whereby a second application for a writ of habeas corpus by or in behalf of a person confined in a State insanity institution, should be accompanied by the certificate of two qualified medical examiners in lunacy, or other evidence showing probable cause to believe that such person has recovered his sanity, and stating the facts on which such information was based, your Committee has nothing further to say. The propriety of such amendment has not seemed as obvious to the Legislature as to your Committee. It may be that a subsequent Legislature may have a more clarified vision. Your Committee has yet to hear any answer to these questions:

(1) Why should insane persons be permitted as of right to pester Courts with applications, which, it is a foregone conclusion, must in the end be denied?

(2) Why is it unreasonable, where an applicant claims to have regained his sanity after the denial of a former application, to require a second petition to be accompanied by some corroborative evidence?

Passing to the more important question, as to the advisability of the substitution of a verdict of "guilty but insane" in place of the present verdict "not guilty by reason of insanity," your Committee is pleased to report that its course in seeking to elicit public interest and discussion before asking this Association to advocate a given amendment, has been justified as the most expedient method to be pursued in so important a matter. Public interest has been aroused and discussion has been had in many newspapers and in various medical and legal associations throughout the country. The reports of your Committee for 1910 and 1911 have been widely circulated. The suggestions in those reports have received much assent, chiefly, however, in the newspapers. They have encountered some dissent, mainly in the medical and legal professions.

The Bar Associations in Chemung and Genesee counties approve the amendment, but it is to the dissent that attention will be paid in this report. Your Committee had indeed endeavored to anticipate the objections which might be urged, but it will be better to consider them anew in the light of what has actually been said by those who have expressed an adverse opinion.

At a meeting of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, held at Boston in September, 1911, there was presented a report on the subject, "Insanity and Criminal Responsibility," by Committee B, of which Mr. Edwin R. Keedy, Professor of Law in the Northwestern University at Chicago, was Chairman. Every member of this Association who is interested in the subject is recom