« ПретходнаНастави »
Third District Frank H. Osborn, A. Page Smith, William H. Hollister, Jr., G. D. B. Hasbrouck.
Fourth District Louis M. King, James W. Lester, Joseph A. Kellogg, Thomas Cantwell.
Fifth District - Eugene E. Sheldon, William H. Kenyon, Fred B. Pitcher, Ralph D. Earl.
Sixth District - H. Austin Clark, William H. Sullivan, Theodore R. Tuthill, Michael H. Kiley.
Seventh District Frederick L. Manning, James A. Robson, Joseph S. Hunn, Sol Wile.
Eighth District - Edward E. Coatsworth, Loran L. Lewis, Jr., Safford E. North, Lester F. Stearns.
COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES.
First District- George S. Coleman, R. Burnham Moffat, Theodore M. Tafft.
Second District George W. Davison, William W. Gillen, Martin Heermance.
Third District - Jacob L. Ten Eyck, Seymour Van Santvoord, John W. Searing.
Fourth District - Frederick G. Paddock, John H. Burke, R. Bronk Fish.
H. W. Bentley, D. A. Pierce, S. C.
Sixth District William H. Johnson, James T. Rogers, Albert O. Briggs.
Seventh District — John Desmond, H. R. Durfee, Selden S. Brown.
Eighth District Simon Fleischmann, Clinton B. Gibbs, J. H. Metcalf.
COMMITTEE ON LEGAL BIOGRAPHY.
First District - Edward S. Rapallo.
Third District - James F. Tracey.
Fourth District - Theodore F. Hamilton.
Fifth District - Ceylon H. Lewis.
EDWARD W. SHELDON,
FRANK HARVEY FIELD,
FREDERICK W. CAMERON,
CHARLES C. LESTER,
WILLIAM P. GOODELLE,
HENRY G. DANFORTH,
Dated NEW YORK, December 13, 1902.
I think the list has been sent to all the members of the Association by mail, and I move that the Secretary cast a ballot for the various persons named for officers of the Association.
The ballot is cast.
The Secretary reports he has cast the ballot, therefore, the persons named for the respective offices are declared to be duly elected.
I can only add to what I have already said, not only in my own behalf, but in behalf of my associates who have
been elected, that we appreciate sincerely the compliment.
The next order of business is the report of the standing committees.
The report of the Committee on Law Reform will be presented by Mr. Fiero later in the day.
Are there any reports of other committees?
I have one or two memoranda from the various members of the Committee on Legal Biography, which I submit; a sketch of Charles S. Baker, James H. Stevens, Jacob Spahn, George F. Yeoman, Abram Van Sanvoord and Stephen Philbin. There will be other reports presented later.
The next special orders.
I have nothing on my desk under that head.
The last item on the regular order of business is miscellaneous business.
John Brooks Leavitt, of New York:
Mr. President, under the head of miscellaneous business, I would like to offer something, if there is no one else wishes to bring anything to the attention of the Association. It is in relation to the bill now before the Assembly, or shortly to be introduced, in support of
what is called the Massachusetts Ballot Bill, and, with the permission of the Chairman and the members, I would like to call their attention to a short passage from a decision of the Appellate Division in the Second Department, in the case of Feeney v. The Board of Canvassers of Richmond County (23 App. Div., 201), upon a matter which is of very vital interest to us as lawyers. This was a contested election case, and the Court there used this language:
But we regard it our duty to call attention to what we deem a serious public danger, likely to arise under our present system of voting. In this way the public may be made aware of the need of reforms in the Election Law (Laws of 1896, chapter 909), by reason of the difficulties of administration, which would otherwise be adequately appreciated only by the courts and parties in such litigations as the present. Easily one of the most serious misfortunes that can happen to any community is a disputed title to high governmental office. Under the present system it would seem, from the case before us, that the number of ballots rejected as void in the count of each election district at the recent election would average five to a district. The rulings of various boards of canvassers as to what are void ballots under the statute and what are good vary, and in our action in this case we have in many instances reversed the determination of the canvassers. If such a proportion of void ballots exists throughout the State at large, the total amount would far exceed 10,000, a number over five times as great as the plurality of the successful candidates for electors in the Presidential election of 1884. *
If an election were close, and the action of the district canvassers throughout a large territory were to be brought in review before the courts, we are entirely clear
that the judicial machinery for their determination would. break down by the weight and number of the issues to be decided, and it would be impossible, even on the aban donment of all other judicial labor, to decide the election questions in time for the officers to enter their offices at the commencement of their official terms. In case of a close Presidential election, the evil and disorder that would ensue from such a state of affairs it is difficult to estimate and scarcely to exaggerate."
That being uttered from the Bench in calm and judicial tone and temper, it seems to me, ought to seriously attract the notice of the profession. In order to do away with some of the evils, a bill has been prepared and is to be introduced, if it has not been already introduced, in the present Senate and Assembly for the purpose of trying to bring into this State the kind of ballot known in Massachusetts and used there and called the Massachusetts Ballot Bill. I do not know whether it will be proper to ask for any expression of opinion from this body upon such a subject, by nature of a resolution in support of the bill. I shall leave that to other members of the body because, perhaps, I feel that, having brought it to the attention of the Association, it is all that my duty consists of. Ex-Judge Cohen, of the Supreme Court in the city of New York, has become interested in this, and is a member of the City Club for the purpose of bringing to bear as much as possible public influence upon the legislation. I have here copies of the bill and a pamphlet issued by the City Club, showing the defects of the State law, and containing the passage which I have quoted. Also a petition to the Legislature, and, to such members as are interested in it, I shall be very glad to give copies. It seems to me, having read from the judicial opinion, that no remarks from me are necessary to enforce upon the