Walter S. Logan, of New York: In view of what I said last night, Mr. President, I wish to say that the resolution as reported by this Special Committee is entirely satisfactory to me and, I believe, to the New York State Bar Association, for which Association I especially spoke last evening. Ferdinand Shack, of New York: Mr. President: I move that the report and resolutions just presented by the Special Committee be adopted. William L. Taylor, of Indiana : It seems to me wise that a copy of these resolutions be now sent not only to the President of the United States, but also to each Congressman and Senator. I ask that that amendment be added to the resolutions presented by the Committee before they are adopted. Henry Budd, of Pennsylvania: I am sorry to differ with my friend from Indiana, but it seems to me that the President of the United States is the only person to whom such resolutions should be transmitted. After the President has prepared a treaty, in conjunction with a foreign power, it then goes to the Senate for their approval. Therefore, it seems to me that the proper person to be addressed is the President of the United States, and that after that any influence that we may see fit to bring upon the Senate is in order. William L. Taylor: Everybody knows that the President of the United States urged the Senate to approve some sort of a treaty, and it was the Senate that failed to approve the treaty that had been prepared. It seems to me that we are here-not legislating, but simply trying to create a sentiment in favor of international arbitration, and what possible objection there can be to what I propose, I fail to see. It does seem to me that our purpose is to create a public sentiment in favor of international arbitration between this country and all the other countries of the world, and we ought to take the lead in this regard and not trifle about considering to whom we shall send our resolutions. The President: Is the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana seconded? F. J. Dickman, of Ohio: I second it. The President: The question is on the amendment to the resolutions of the Committee. The amendment is that these resolutions shall be sent to the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives as well as to the President. Are you ready for the question? Ferdinand Shack, of New York: Although I am not a member of the Committee, I move the adoption of the resolutions, and I think the Committee will be willing to accept the amendment. James H. Hoyt, of Ohio: I I beg the gentleman's pardon. As one member of the committee I most positively decline to accept the amendment. agree with the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Budd, in what he stated, and that is the opinion of the majority of the Committee. The Committee are prepared to stand by the resolutions they have submitted. The President: The question is upon the adoption of the amendment. I withdraw my amendment. The President: Then, the amendment being withdrawn, the question is upon. the adoption of the resolutions presented by the Committee. The resolutions were adopted. The President: The next committee to report is the Committee on GrievI understand that Committee has nothing to report, which is very fortunate. ances. The Committee on Law Reporting and Digesting. We have heard nothing from Judge Dillon, the Chairman of the Committee, and as I am the sole member of the Committee here I have nothing to report, and, so far as I am concerned, I would like to be discharged from further service. The President: That is a standing Committee, and the gentleman cannot be discharged. Reports of special committees are next in order. Under this head the first committee to report is the Committee on the Expression and Classification of the Law. I understand there is no report from that Committee. I ought to say that the Chair made very great effort in the selection of this Committee in the hope of securing competent gentlemen who would address themselves to the subject committed to them, but unfortunately the Committee has been prevented from preparing any report. Next is the Committee on Indian Legislation. There is no report from that Committee, and in that connection I wish to make a suggestion to the Association. I think this special Committee, which was originally raised for the purpose of meeting a temporary exigency, is no longer required and it is exceedingly difficult to get any gentleman to act upon this Committee who has any interest in the subject. The next committee is the Committee on Uniform State Laws. Lyman D. Brewster, of Connecticut: Mr. President: Our report is as follows: (See the Report in the Appendix.) On motion of William Wirt Howe, seconded by Simeon E. Baldwin, the report was accepted and placed on file. The President: The next Committee to report is the Committee on Patent Law. Edmund Wetmore, of New York: The report of the Special Committee on Patent Law is as follows: (See the Report in the Appendix.) On motion of Robert S. Taylor, of Indiana, seconded by Richard L. Ashhurst, of Pennsylvania, the report was accepted and placed on file. The President: Next is the Committee on Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. Charles F. Libby, of Maine: Our report states the preliminary work done by the Committee, and also the fact that, in accordance with an Act of Congress approved June 4, 1897, the President has recently appointed three commissioners to revise and codify the criminal and penal laws of the United States. This action seems to discharge this Committee from any further duty in the matter, unless it may be to turn over to these commissioners the information which we have obtained by correspondence with the several district attorneys of the United States as to changes in criminal procedure in the Federal Courts which their experience has suggested. The report covers another matter which was referred to this Committee at the last meeting of the Association. This was "to examine into and report upon the justice and expediency of aiding indigent persons accused of crime in securing competent attorneys and the attendance of important witnesses on the trial of such accused persons." On inquiry the Committee find that it is the practice in the eastern circuits, and probably in the other circuits, for the judges to appoint, either at the request of persons accused of crime or on their own motion, counsel in any case where the court considers that the interests of justice require it; and, while there is no provision of law for the payment of counsel in such cases, the Committee are of the opinion that it would not be wise to undertake to provide counsel for all persons accused of crime, nor to pay counsel for the services rendered except in a limited number of cases. We refer to the provision found in one of the Eastern States, which has seemed to us a wise provision to be incorporated into the Federal Statutes. It reads: "Competent counsel shall be assigned by the court in cases where a person is indicted for a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for life when it appears that the accused has not sufficient means to employ counsel, and reasonable compensation, not exceeding $300 in all at any one trial, shall be allowed by the court." Of course, the limit of compensation in that statute might seem too restricted for all cases, but it is the scope of the statute rather than this minor feature to which the Committee desire to call attention. Reference is made in the report to a provision found in the Revised Statutes of the United States, Section 1034, which provides for the assignment of counsel in capital cases, not exceeding two, as the accused may desire, but no provision is there made for the compensation of such counsel. The provisions of Section 878 of the Revised Statutes of the United States as to compulsory process for witnesses in behalf of the defence seem to the Committee broad enough to meet the requirements of justice in such cases, except that the limitation of one hundred miles might well be eliminated, so that subpoenas in criminal cases issued in behalf of the defence should run in behalf of the government throughout the United States. I beg to add the fact that while the names of only a part of the Committee appear appended to the report all of the Committee have concurred in the views presented. (See the report in the Appendix.) M. D. Follett, of Ohio: There is one thing in regard to this statute of the United States which it seems to me is not sufficient, at least under the practice in the western districts, and that is this. Where a defendant is an educated man he might set forth to the court, in an affidavit, what he expects to prove, and so on, but it is |