The President: Do I hear any motion in reference to the report of the Committee? Everett P. Wheeler, of New York: Mr. President, I move the Committee be continued. The President: The motion is that the report be received and that the Committee be continued. John Brooks Leavitt, of New York: I think on behalf of the Committee, or as an individual member of the Committee, I would make objection to that. Mr. Wheeler, of New York: Then I withdraw it and move that the Committee be discharged with thanks. The President: The motion now is that the Committee be discharged. Is there anything to be said on that motion? There seems to be a very lively interest, or no interest at all, I can't tell which. Henry A. Forster, of New York: I second the motion. The motion was duly carried. William B. Hornblower, of New York: Mr. President, referring to Mr. Leavitt's remark in regard to the Constitutional Convention of 1894 empowering the Appellate Division to assign Judges to the Special Terms and Trial Terms which he characterized as making the Judges errand boys, I do not wish to go on record as acquiescing in the correctness of my brother's definition of the present function of the Appellate Division, or the present function of the other Judges. That subject I think has already been up in the City Bar Association and they were against the repeal of that provision. Personally I am in favor of the provision as it stands. The President: The report of the Committee to Investigate the Publication of Legal Notices. Henry Crofut White, of New York: Mr. President, just a word of preface to this report. I was pretty earnest about this subject at the time of my motion last year that a committee should be appointed. The Committee does not believe in any sort of 1 ersonal investigation in this matter. Their investigation has been strictly impersonal. It is not a question whether this Judge or that Judge, this Surrogate or that Surrogate orders his publication in improper papers; but it is a question whether any abuse exists as to the papers in which the publication, or any class of legal notice has been made or is being made. We feel most strongly that this question is far more important than the average practitioner is disposed to think. A great many men have replied to our inquiries saying that the law only requires a publication of such a notice for example in two papers, and it makes no difference in what paper the publication is made so long as the law is complied with. I think it is a very serious mistake on the part of any member of the Bar to feel that way. We attribute the answer to thoughtlessness rather than to any real conviction upon the subject, and I wish, if you would, that you would give your attention particularly to that part of the report and think the matter over in your own minds whether any conscientious practitioner can say in good faith and honesty that because the law requires the publication in any two newspapers that nobody expects anybody to receive a notice. by publication of course and that a sufficient compliance with the law has been made when any two papers have been designated. Henry Crofut White, of New York, read the report as follows: REPORT OF COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES The Committee to Investigate the Publication of Legal Notices respectfully submits the following report: For many years complaint has been made by members of the Bar that, in at least some counties of this State, publication of summons, citations, notices to present claims, notices of limited partnership, and other legal notices has, with some frequency, been ordered made in papers having either no bona fide circulation, or a circulation so limited as to defeat the object of publication. This question does not concern a legal technicality, but a thoroughly practical business matter. No attorney can disregard it, if honestly representing interests. affected thereby; nor can the Bar generally overlook an evil which, if existent, alike contravenes common sense business methods and degrades professional ethics. The basic theory of publication is not the mere fulfilment of senseless technical requirements, but is the employment of the best substitute for an impossible personal service. The statement occasionally heard that, as publication is only made to satisfy statutory rule, no one being expected to receive any actual notice thereby, it may as well be made in one paper as in another, is neither logical nor inherently honest. If publication is useless in any class of cases, it should be abolished by appropriate statutory amendment, but so long as required, your Committee believe that it is the duty of Bench and Bar to insist upon fulfilment of the law's intent, and that a client's funds are not to be expended for this purpose, more than for any other, except for value received. This involves only the exercise of ordinary care in cases where the medium of advertisement is selected by the attorney; where selection is made by the Court, an error of judgment may be corrected by application for resettlement of the order, upon proper affidavit as to the objectionable character of the designation. Probably no more persuasive measure could be adopted for the correction of any flagrant or continued abuse of the designating power, than an appeal from such order to the Appellate Division. In the course of its investigations, your Committee has examined orders of publication in 5.959 matters; communicated with 271 attorneys in all parts of the State, asking for information as to the existence of the evil in their particular locality, and suggestions as to its correction; has received replies from 151 of its correspondents, and has had personal conferences with many others, including members of committees of the State and New York City Bar Associations. As a result, it may be said that there is no question. that such evil has existed, in an aggravated form, in certain counties in times not far past; a number of so-called newspapers having been evidently maintained without bona fide circulation, for the sole purpose of receiving the profits of such advertising. In other counties the practice has been wholly unknown. In still others, politics has determined the direction of this patronage, although the papers selected were, in many cases, probably quite as valuable media as those not chosen. After devoting to its work the considerable time and labor shown above, your Committee are of the opinion that a further large amount of data must be collected, from many sources, and digested; and, that the co-operation and advice of the Courts themselves must probably be sought before any just report, as to present conditions, and particularly, before any recommendations with reference to remedial legislation or measures can be presented. It is, therefore, deemed wise to make no further reference here to this phase of the subject. Your Committee's correspondence and conferences have, however, revealed the existence, throughout the State, of a deep and vital interest in the following matters: The high, and, in some counties, excessive, charges for the publication of legal notices as compared with those for other advertisements; The propriety of abolishing publication as against persons other than those of unknown name or residence; The propriety of abolishing the publication of statutes, jury lists, terms of Court, and other like State matter in "County Papers." These and certain other minor questions of similar nature are so closely related to the particular subject, for the investigation of which this Committee was appointed, that it is believed that they may be profitably considered in connection therewith. This will, naturally, be done in part through conference and in co-operation with the Committees on Law Reform and Revision of |