persons other than those making the original revision, and without doubt the active co-operation of the Bar Associations and lawyers of the State could readily be enlisted by way of advice, criticism and suggestion.

As bearing upon the statement made with regard to the expenses of the commission, I have caused an examination to be made of the session laws reaching back to 1889, from the first appropriation for carrying out the provision of the law relative to the present statutory revision, up to and including the appropriation for 1899, including all appropriations for the persons acting as Statutory Revision Commissioners; I find it aggregates the sum of $245,500. It is, perhaps, to be said that $27,000 or thereabouts of that amount ought not to be so charged, as it was for independent work of one of the commissioners of revision, acting in another capacity. So that we may say that $220,000 has been expended by the State, as appears by the appropriation from year to year, for the revision of the statutes up to this time, and the fact stands that substantially the same number of General Laws, remain to be revised, that so remained in 1892, so that it is very easy to arrive at a conclusion as to what benefits have been derived from this expenditure of more than $20,000 annually, from 1892 to 1899. I won't be so unkind as to say that perhaps that is not an unmixed evil; you have all had occasion to examine the work of the revisers as it has been done since 1895, and as it stands upon the statute books, and I have no comments to make in regard to that subject. I think we have all found that there has been in a great many cases a lack of that degree of care and attention in the work which would have been desirable, notably in the case of the revision of so-called Tax Laws, a revision which was completed by another body of men substantially; some

changes were made by the revision commissioners, and it was presented as the Tax Law of 1896. You will recall that within a few weeks the Court of Appeals directed a re-argument to be had, because of the fact that as to section 12 the commissioners stated it was without change, two lines having been omitted by them and eliminated from the section, which threw a doubt upon a very important question with regard to taxation. The court subsequently held the omission of the two lines would not make a change in the construction of the section, but the fact they deemed it necessary to order a re-argument on their own motion, in order to determine the fact, throws some light upon that subject. There is one other suggestion that I want to make here and now, because I deem it the proper place to make it, and that is that this work, undertaken by this Association in the way of Code revision and for the purpose of obtaining more thorough work upon statutory revision, has, as I have every reason to believe, been somewhat hampered by representations which have been made, as I am assured, not by the members of the Statutory Revision Commission, but on their behalf and in their interest, that this Association was influenced by motives other than those looking towards the best interest of the lawyers of the State, and the argument has been used, and I want to meet it just here on behalf of every member of the Committee on Law Reform and of myself personally, and have it distinctly understood, on the part of the Bar of the State, and on the part of those persons to whom such statements have been made, that such a view is absolutely repudiated by the Committee on Law Reform, and by every member of it, and I feel very well assured, and I think I have a right to state absolutely, that no member of the Law Reform Committee would be willing, under the circumstances, to accept any position in

connection with that work, where one cent of compensation, under any circumstances could or would be allowed. I think any member of the Association who might be called upon to aid in the work, where it was a voluntary work, taken up by the Association as such, would feel bound absolutely, in view of the position of the Association to aid in that respect to the very best of his ability. I should not have mentioned this except that I know during the last session of the legislature that argument was presented, and that the merits were considerably lost sight of, as it was intended they should be lost sight of, by the persons who suggested that view. I move the adoption of the resolution.

The President:

The subject is now open for discussion.

Leroy Parker, of Buffalo:

It cer

Mr. President, I wish, as a member of the Committee on Law Reform, to simply reiterate what Mr. Fiero has already said in reference to these two questions. tainly must be apparent to every member of this Association, as it is apparent already to the members of the Bar throughout the State, that a grave necessity exists for the completion of statutory revision in such a manner as was originally designed and intended by the action of this Association, and, if any measure can be adopted which will have for its purpose and which will effect a speedy arrival at the conclusion aimed at by this Association years ago, that certainly should be adopted and pressed with the utmost vigor. It is true, as has been said, that the results accomplished, and the great attending expense have not been what was desired. It seems to me we should use our best efforts to further the object, so that the expense may

be reduced, and the objects attained as rapidly as possible. We all agree upon it, because it has been the subject for discussion before this Association for years, that it is a work that should be pressed, should be urged, should be carried out, and, it seems to me, we should speak at this time as emphatically as we can, as an Association, in favor of the carrying out of this proposition. The Bar Association has exercised a wide, important and strong influence upon the legislation of this State heretofore, and, if we speak now as earnestly and forcibly as we have in the past, it seems to me we can accomplish the result in time.

E. T. Lovatt, of New York:

very brief

Mr. President, the difficulties which the Law Reform Committee seem to have to contend with are, that as they are constituted and their powers are created by the Constitution and By-laws of this Association, that when meeting the revision commission and discussing these matters, they are put in the attitude of opposing the revision commission, and the authority which they exercise is such a limited one that I do not believe the Law Reform Committee has been able to do all it might do, provided some special measure was introduced here which might be of aid and assistance to them in their work. As I read the Constitution, the Law Reform Committee are simply watchers or detectives who look after, investigate and ascertain what is going to be done in regard to certain matters, and then report to us. One of the questions for discussion here is: What method should be adopted to obtain proper consideration for the bar of the State, in the proposed revision of the Code prepared by the Statutory Revision Commission? What action should be taken by this Association in reference to the present condition of

statutory revision? It has occurred to me that a resolution something like this might be of great assistance to us in securing what we believe is to the best advantage of the people of our State, in regard to the matters which a revision commission necessarily would have to consider, and, therefore, I offer this resolution:

66

and

Resolved, That the Law Reform Committee be requested to appoint a sub-committee of five of its members, of which the Chairman of the Law Reform Committee shall be one, and that said committee, when so selected, shall be and hereby is authorized empowered to fully represent and act for this Association in urging, aiding, assisting or suggesting to the revision commissioners such matters or things as they believe will be in the best interests of the people of the State of New York."

That saves the Law Reform Committee from waiting for next year to come back and report something that has been done, and have our worthy Chairman and all these gentlemen, after all their labors, say: We haven't accomplished anything; we are still in the woods." I believe this resolution will help us to get out. Therefore, I offer it.

Warren Higley, of New York:

Mr. President, I rise to second that motion, for the reason that from what has been said this morning by the able Chairman of the committee, there seems to be a necessity for such enforcement of the views of this Association, first, upon the Statutory Revision Commission, and, second, upon the legislature, in order to secure this much-needed and much-desired legislation. I, therefore, most heartily second the resolution, which seems to me just reaches the point that we are trying to get at.