grateful to lawyers throughout the State not only for gifts of this material (in the Supreme Court as well as in the Court of Appeals) but also for suggestions as to where we may be able to obtain it. The old library did not have any collection (except in a very few individual cases) of the cases and briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States. After the fire, however, we were offered what is understood to be a complete set from 1874. After careful consideration this set was purchased and arrangements have been made to keep it down to date. We regard this as a most important and valuable collection, of which the State can justly be proud. In passing I may point out that it is perhaps as important to the economist and historian as to the lawyer, and therefore its value is by no means confined to the Law Library alone but extends also to other parts of the State Library. Turning to legal periodicals, the policy of the library is to be as exhaustive as possible in this field so far as publications in the English language are concerned. While many of these sets are already in the library we are, in general, finding great difficulty in locating this particular kind of material, and it will be a long time before our holdings approach the practical completeness of the collections in the old library. Very little material in this field can safely be ignored. A few days ago a State department had a very important matter under consideration. A careful search disclosed only one case (in the Louisville Chancery Court) which seems to be directly in point. It turns out that the opinion in that case is apparently reported only in Volume 1 of the Kentucky Law Journal. It is not reported in any of the regular series of Kentucky reports. Only seven numbers of Volume 2 of this periodical were issued, and then the publication was discontinued. We had a complete set in the old library, but have not been able to secure it since the fire. This is a forcible illustration of the necessity of being as exhaustive as possible in this field. So far as periodicals in foreign languages are concerned, obviously only a limited selection can be made. The members of this Association will, I trust, be pleased to learn that the library was fortunate enough to secure practically the entire collection of Bar Association reports and reports of legal societies which Mr. Francis Rawle, of Philadelphia, accumulated for a period covering many years. Efforts are now being made not only to bring this collection down to date but to make arrangements so that the library will receive future reports of the various Bar Associations and legal societies as issued. Some progress has already been made on collections of legal history and biography, literature of the law, international law, constitutional law, and trials, and continued attention will be given to these topics. No systematic work has yet been done in the direction. of collecting material in the field of foreign law, outside of English speaking peoples, but in general it will be the policy of the library to secure such of the statute law and legal literature of foreign countries as will be useful to our State Courts and departments in passing upon foreign questions coming before them, and to the Legislature for a comparative study of legislation. In closing I wish simply to say that the library exists partly for your benefit and we trust that you will call upon us whenever you think that we may be able to be of service to you. In return we ask your active support and co-operation in developing the resources of the library and in making it of real practical value to the State. The President: I am sure the Association is grateful to Mr. Colson for this information in reference to the rehabilitating of the State Library, the loss of which has been felt so much by the profession, especially by those who live in Albany and by those who temporarily sojourn there arguing their cases. We will now have the report of the Committee on Contingent Fees.. John Brooks Leavitt, of New York: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would simply ask Brother Hornblower if his Commission was responsible for the system by which the Supreme Court Justices were made errand boys to the Appellate Division? William B. Hornblower, of New York: No, I don't think so; if there is anything objectionable, it was not. John Brooks Leavitt, of New York, read the report of the Committee on Contingent Fees, as follows: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON CONTINGENT FEES To the New York State Bar Association: The Committee on the Abuses of the Contingent Fee begs to submit its sixth and final report. Its recital in its first report, six years ago, of the abuses which have grown out of the legislative enactment of 1848, and the amendments thereto, permitting unrestricted bargaining between attorney and client as to the former's compensation for professional services, has never been. questioned. But the inability of the profession throughout the State, to agree upon any legislation to correct or lessen these abuses, which was set forth in your Committee's subsequent report, still continues. So mild a measure as a statutory declaration of the Court's supervisory power over such contracts, which this Committee proposed in its first report, met with much opposition throughout the State. If the Bar has so little confidence in the Bench, as this unexpected attitude proved is the case, it should not be a matter of surprise if laymen advocate the recall of judges and of their decisions. One of the problems of our day is to restore the confidence of the public in our judicial system, and the Bar must begin by showing its own confidence. So long as the Bar is unwilling to come to any agreement as to the supervision by the Courts of its contracts with its clients in respect of its own compensation, it is idle for the Committee to propose any concrete legislation on the subject. All that can be hoped for is that the Bench will reassert its undoubted jurisdiction to pass upon the reasonableness of any specific contract, in the light of the rule, which was well settled before 1848, and has never been repealed, that in all cases involving contracts between attorney and client, the burden of justifying them as reasonable is upon the attorney. The recent amendment, by which subdivision 2 of section 88 of the Judiciary Law, formerly section 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was recast into more drastic form (Laws of 1912, chap. 253) may influence the Courts in dealing with controversies arising out of the contracts as well as the conduct of attorneys. Dated January 14, 1913. JOHN BROOKS LEAVITT, First District. FRANK IRVINE, Sixth District. GEORGE HERBERT SMITH, Seventh District. JAMES M. HUNT, Ninth District. Mr. David F. Manning, the member of our Committee from the Second District, does not join in our report, for the reason that at the beginning of this year he took a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court in that district. Mr. Simon Fleischmann, member from the Eighth District, concurred, in the main. I concur in the above report, except the following sentences: "If the bar has so little confidence in the bench, as this unexpected attitude proved is the case, it should not be a matter of surprise if laymen advocate the recall of judges and of their decisions. One of the problems of our day is to restore the confidence of the public in our judicial system, and the bar must begin by showing its own confidence." I think the above expressions are susceptible of a misinterpretation that would do an injustice to the Bar, as a whole, and carry with them implications not warranted by the facts, or by the progress or lack of progress of the movement under consideration. BUFFALO, January 23, 1913. The President: SIMON FLEISCHMANN You have heard the report of the Committee. Is there any discussion? A Member: I would like to ask what the Committee reports? John Brooks Leavitt, of New York: It simply reports the opposition from the Bar throughout the State to any action on the subject. The Committee feels it can do no more. |