vokes anger, discontent and negligence on the part of the father, who feels that he is deprived of a right that he is entitled to by reason of his providing for the maintenance of the children. The domestic relations court has no power to direct the mother to allow the father to see the children.

Again, there are cases which come before the domestic relations court in which the husband and father should be denied admittance to the home by reason of his brutality or degencrate acts, and yet he is supporting the home. The court should have the power to keep this father from the homestead, and yet the support of the home should be maintained by the husband and father. We have no such power under the laws as they exist to-day.

It is true that application can be made to the Supreme Court in an action for separation, but the people we are dealing with are poor people and the delay attendant upon bringing a suit, application for alimony, etc., is such, to wit, the long time. before maintenance could be received through an order of the Supreme Court, that the delay in the effort to obtain the remedy in a great many cases would be worse than the disease. What we want in these courts is a sort of quick-rapid-fire material relief re-enforced by summary action. As the law is to-day no jurisdiction is vested in the domestic relations court as to the custody of children in the cases mentioned. It must leave them as it finds them in whosoever's custody that may be, although convinced that the time and place to determine their best welfare and to make provision therefor is when the parents are within the jurisdiction of the court, and all the questions involved could be determined. The child may be in the custody of the father or other person acting for him, when in the opinion of the magistrate, after hearing all the parties in interest, it would be for the best interest and welfare of the child, say a girl, who by reason of youth, health, environment or otherwise, the mother should have her care, custody and

control, or vice versa in the case of a young lad, the mother or her agents having his custody, it would in the opinion of the magistrate be for his best interest that the father should have his care and control. The hands of the court are tied. We are told that these questions - control and custody of the children are vested in the Supreme Court, and their rights as well as those of the parents will be protected therein. That is all true, but it involves financial expense as well as cost of time and labor which those who seek the portal of this court cannot afford to pay, and in this progressive age delay, circuity and expense should be avoided and not cast upon those who can ill afford to bear it.

Again, the wife is unable by reason of circumstances oftentimes to secure the necessary testimony in order to maintain a case in this court, not because the testimony is not in existence, but because she has not the means to obtain it. There is a staff of probation officers attached to these domestic relations courts who could readily make a survey of a particular family and the particular circumstances surrounding the same and whose report the magistrate in the domestic relations court should be allowed to take judicial notice of. This cannot be done under the present organization of the court.

The judges of the Children's Court are heartily in favor of the proposed amendment. In a great many cases in which children are brought before them, I am informed, they send children to institutions even though a good home is offered to the children with people of the same religious belief as the parents, and they find they are compelled to decline the offer because they have no power to appoint said people guardians, even though all the consents required could be given.

This proposed amendment was favorably reported in the Constitutional Convention of 1915 and was embodied in section 22 of article 8 of the proposed Constitution.

The following is the resolution:

66

'WHEREAS, A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution in relation to children's courts and courts of domestic relations which in substance provides that the Legislature may establish children's courts, and courts of domestic relations, as separate courts, or as parts of existing courts or courts hereafter to be created, and may confer upon them such equity or other jurisdiction as may be necessary for the correction, protection, guardianship and disposition of delinquent, neglected or dependent minors, and for the punishment and correction of adults responsible for or contributing to such delinquency, neglect or dependency, and to compel the support of a wife, child, or poor relative by persons legally chargeable therewith, who abandon or neglect, to support any of them.

In the exercise of such jurisdiction such courts may hear and determine such causes, with or without a jury, except those involving a felony.

Resolved, That the New York State Bar Association endorse the said proposed amendment and urge the Legislature to pass the same.

The President:

Under our rules, the resolution will be referred to the Committee on Law Reform.

Charles A. Boston, of New York:

Mr. President, is the reference of this resolution to the Committee on Law Reform with power? Have we power to recommend upon it?

The President:

Certainly, under the amendment of our Constitution recently adopted.

We will now proceed to the consideration of the regular order, and I present the Secretary of State, Francis M. Hugo, who will address us on the subject of Corporations in the State of New York.

Francis M. Hugo, the Secretary of State, then read the following paper:

CORPORATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK

I regard the privilege of addressing you as imposing upon me two obligations: first, that of being brief; second, that of saying such things only as are calculated to merit the attention of men who are learned in the law and whose time is precious.

For breach of the first obligation I should be without excuse, but the second involves such difficulties that I must rely upon your kind forbearance if I fall short.

Having in mind these requisites I shall confine my remarks to New York corporations and to New York laws as they stand to-day and to facts and practice rather than theory.

I shall further narrow the subject by excluding non-stock corporations and by touching upon public service corporations only so far as allusion to them may be useful in a presentation of what I have to say respecting the Business Corporation, for that is the kind of company with which the every-day practice of lawyers has most to do.

More than 15,000 business corporations were formed under the laws of New York during the calendar year of 1919 (an increase of 7,000 over 1918), and the Secretary of State collected in filing, recording and certification fees, $581,118.50, and the organization taxes amounted to $1,463,384.75. If the annual franchise and income taxes were added, the revenues of the State derived directly from the organization of corporations and the exercise of their primary franchises would amount to approximately $40,000,000.00, or 42 per cent. of the total expenditures for the maintenance of the State government during the fiscal year last past.

These figures show the direct pecuniary tribute which the State obtains from the organization and operation of stock companies within its borders. The indirect benefits are too

vast for estimate. Practically all manufacturing, transportation and commercial enterprises of any magnitude are conducted by corporations - they are the vehicles of trade. And though, like many other conveniences, they may be, and sometimes are, employed for the perpetration of wrong, they are indispensable to modern industry, and it is to the interest of the community at large that they be permitted the fullest freedom of action consistent with a sound public policy.

I believe that the members of our profession can render a valuable service by directing a portion of their thought, reflection and energy to the improvement of the corporation statutes, and as this Association is an agency well fitted to receive initial ideas, subject them to the test of critical examination and to present to the Legislature such as may survive that test, I am impelled to submit, for your attention, certain phases of the New York Corporation Laws which I believe are susceptible of improvement. I do not recommend any sweeping revision. or radical change, for I am convinced that the value of the New York corporation laws rests in no small part upon their conservatism and the reluctance of our lawmakers to experiment. The corporation statutes of our State are the result of a steady and healthy growth, calculated to meet the increasing demands of our commercial life. Designed primarily for the accommodation of residents of our own State, it is gratifying to know that by their excellence and stability they have attracted the favorable notice of lawyers and business men of other states, so that many non-residents have in recent years taken out New York charters. Generally speaking, the New York corporation carries upon it the stamp of respectability. The fly-by-night promoter is impelled to select a jurisdiction where the fees and taxes are lower and the restrictions upon his peculiar methods of operation are less troublesome. New York has not, and, I am confident, never will deliberately shape her statutes for the primary purpose of acquiring revenue by