in no instance has concluded a treaty whose provisions were in conflict with an act of Congress.

It is true that the President has negotiated numerous treaties with other nations which have overridden State laws, and the validity of such treaties has been upheld by the courts. Examples of such are treaties conferring rights on the citizens of those nations to hold, inherit and transmit by inheritance, property located in this country.

It is also true that quite recently the President has entered into treaties of commercial reciprocity with several foreign powers, which, if ratified by the Senate, will modify the operation of our tariff laws upon imports from those countries. But those treaties have been made under authority conferred on the President by Congress in the Dingley Act itself. Indeed, in view of the express provision of the Federal Constitution (article I, section 8, subdivision 5), which vests in Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations," it is a matter of serious doubt whether the Executive, even under the broad treaty powers conferred on him by that instrument, may, by a commercial treaty with a foreign State, regulate the duty on imports. If the pending treaty with Cuba attempts to fix tariff rates on importations from that island, it is not so clear how such a provision can be sustained in view of the language of the Constitution which I have just quoted, unless the treaty provides for some action by Congress to carry its provisions into effect. That has been the usual course in the case of the many similar treaties which have been made with foreign powers since the formation of our government; especially has this been so whenever it was intended by a proposed treaty to supersede any provision of the Federal laws then in force. I may, therefore, venture the opinion, in conclusion, that a treaty will never be made

by this government, or at any rate carried into effect, so as to subvert an act of Congress, until it shall have received, in some manner, the sanction of that body; that the courts will never be called on to determine the force and effect of such a treaty upon existing laws, and that the danger of a clash between the treaty-making power and the legislative branch of the general government, while always present in theory, is to all intents and purposes non-existent. (Applause.)

The President:

The reading of papers will be continued at the session to-morrow:

The Secretary:

I present the following names for membership: W. B. Leach, of Norwich; Sanford Church, of Albion; Edward R. Finch, of New York; Charles F. Bostwick, of New York; Robert Lynn Cox, of Buffalo.

Louis M. King, of Schenectady:

The Committee on Admissions report favorably on the names just read and also on the names presented this morning.

The Secretary:

Mr. Fiero wished me to announce that the Committee on Law Reform will meet at the office of the Chairman, 100 State street, at 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Henry L. Bogert, of New York:

Mr. President, I move that the election of the members whose names have been proposed be proceeded with; that the Secretary cast one ballot containing those names, because it appears the election of members should be by ballot.

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

The President:

The Secretary reports he has cast the ballot, and the gentlemen are declared to be duly elected.

The Association then adjourned to meet in the Assembly Chamber, Capitol, at 8 P. M.

EVENING SESSION.

ALBANY, N. Y., TUESDAY, January 20, 1903.

The Association convened in the Assembly Chamber, Capitol, Tuesday evening, January 20, 1903, at 8 p. M., at which time Dr. Rokuichiro Masujima, of Tokyo, Japan, delivered the annual address, the subject being, "The Present Position of Japanese Law and Jurisprudence."

President Milburn:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.- We have assembled to listen to a distinguished Japanese lawyer, who has crossed the Pacific and our own wide continent for this occasion. There has been no more interesting event in the history of the Association. It signalizes the changes that are taking place in our relations to the Orient. He does not come to us as a representative of a people with whom we have nothing in common, to speak to us on a subject which can have no other interest than that of mere remoteness and curiosity. Recent events have drawn Japan and the United States together and made them closely related members of the family of nations. Since we became what is called a world-power by acquiring possessions in the Orient, we have realized, as never before, that Japan has