that we ought to have a special court, but no patent appeals go to that court. That court has the right to take any case by writ of certiorari, but the Circuit Courts of Appeals have final jurisdiction in patent cases. We have nine such courts of appeals and while it may be true that the judges of those courts when they went upon the Bench were not patent judges, yet the judges in the courts that have the most of the work in this line have become very expert in those matters. It is not a desirable thing, in my opinion, to try law suits before a court of specialists. We do not want to do that in patent matters. We want to try our cases before judges who are versed in general law, and who apply the principles of the general law to the solution of the questions arising in patent cases. The technical questions are not difficult, generally speaking. The greatest objection to the further endorsement of the bill for a court of patent appeals is this: For 20 years that bill has been pressed in Congress. Patent lawyers who are interested in our Patent Section believe that under the new By-Laws we can accomplish something, and they do not want to spend the time in trying to press that bill, which has failed even with the great influence of the late Judge Taylor and the great influence of Mr. Frederick P. Fish behind it. Now, let it rest for a while. It can be brought up later if need be. I think we ought rather to devote our energies to increasing the efficiency of the Patent Office by pushing the Nolan Bill.

James H. Harkless, of Missouri:

As Judge Taylor's name has been invoked, and I realize in what affectionate remembrance it is held by all of his acquaintances, myself among them, I think it only fitting to say that in his last report, made as Chairman of the standing committee on this subject, he said that the only court Congress was willing to give us would be no more fit to try patent cases than the police court in Chicago, and he added to that statement that the judges composing the Circuit Courts of Appeals of the United States, to which these patent appeals now go, are the ablest body of patent judges the world ever saw. It is proposed now to send these cases to a court made up of specialists, and if you ever get a court that is not applying the general principles of law it will be the doom of our system. Substantially all those who have had large experi

ence in this class of cases feel, as I do, that it would be a very great mistake to try and push this bill any further. We also feel that it is not fitting that this Association should have its name further associated with the pressing of a bill that has been turned down for 20 odd years.

Mr. Edson's motion as a substitute for the motion made by the Chairman of the committee, Mr. Lane, was defeated.

The motion made by Mr. Lane approving of the recommendation of the report of the Section of Patent Law was then passed. (For Report see July Journal, page 505.)

Section of Public Utility Law:

Secretary Kemp:

Mr. Armstrong, Secretary of the Section on Public Utility Law, has requested me to read the following report:

"The third annual meeting of the Section of Public Utility Law was held in accordance with the announcement in the program at the Hotel Statler, on Tuesday, August 24, 1920.

"The Section as well as the Association met with such a severe loss in the death of the Chairman, Mr. Wm. C. Niblack, that a shadow was cast for that reason over what otherwise was a very interesting and successful meeting.

"The attendance was very satisfactory; the papers were interesting and the open discussion of questions submitted, which has been a feature of this Section at all times since its organization, proved to be very interesting indeed.

The death of Mr. Niblack was announced by Mr. Bently W. Warren, the Vice-Chairman, who called upon Mr. S. S. Gregory to speak concerning him. He paid a very eloquent and touching tribute to the life, character and services of Mr. Niblack, expressing his deep sense of personal loss in his death.

"He followed this with a very interesting paper on desirability of the exclusive control of Interstate Utilities by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

"The By-Laws were adopted in accordance with the amended Constitution and By-Laws of the Association and officers were elected for the Section for the ensuing year, as has been duly reported."

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws:

William A. Blount, of Florida:

The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has made a report which has been printed and distributed to the members of the Association. I will let it rest at that, with the additional statement that since the report was printed the State of Louisiana has enacted a uniform law on domestic acknowledgments, and it becomes my duty to report that fact. No recommendation is made, and, therefore, no action by the Association is desired at this time.

(For Report see July Journal, page 528.)

The Secretary then read a list of 49 nominees, certified by the Local Councils and recommended by the General Council, and they were elected members of the Association.

Committee on Co-operation Among Bar Associations:

Julius Henry Cohen, of New York:

My report will be in a dual capacity. It will be a report on behalf of the Committee of the American Bar Association, and, at the request of the Section, a report of the Conference of Bar Associations.

The Committee on Co-operation among Bar Associations was created by the American Bar Association to carry out a very definite purpose resulting from a meeting held in Chicago in 1916, at which time very much the same questions were under discussion that have been under discussion here in the Open Forum. It was recognized that the state and local associations constituted an important agency in respect of the expression of public opinion, and that there must be devised some method for bringing the members of the American Bar in closer contact. The effort in this direction was the calling of an informal conference, which took place at Saratoga Springs in 1917. That conference was very successful. It was followed by another conference, held at Cleveland the following year, and another at Boston last year, and this year in St. Louis. At this meeting there were 99 delegates registered, representing the American Bar Association, 35 state associations, and 32 local associations. At the meeting there was informal discussion and action.

The business of the Conference this year was carried over partly from last year. There was a discussion last year as to the work that local and state bar associations throughout the country should do in an effort to repress the unlawful practice of the law by trust companies and other corporations, as well as other lay agencies, and, as the result of the discussion last year, it was decided that a special committee should be appointed to prepare a brief on the law involved for the use of state and local bar associations. A special committee consisting of W. H. H. Piatt, John Lowell, George Sutherland, Clarence N. Goodwin and Hugh Henry Brown, reported at this session. Their brief was ordered sent to all state and local bar associations, and the associations were requested to take the definition in that brief and urge its adoption into the statute laws of the states.

The other matter was the matter of the incorporation of the Bar of each state. Last year we considered the model act prepared by the American Judicature Society. Herbert Harley appeared before the Conference and presented the features of that act, and it was determined that the matter should be considered by state bar associations. A special committee appointed to consider the matter reported this year. That report was freely discussed and approved, and it was recommended to the state bar associations of the country that they consider the report and take appropriate action thereon.

The third matter that came before the Conference was the result of a resolution of last year calling upon the Conference to take up the matter of the study of aeronautics and aerography. A committee was appointed, and the report of that committee came in. It was the opinion of the executive officers of the Conference that that was not a proper subject to be considered; that it belonged more properly within the American Bar Association; and, at the suggestion of those officers, the committee itself moved that the valuable material which it had gathered be transmitted to the American Bar Association for reference to such committee or section or any other body to which the American Bar Association decided to send it. So as to that matter the action of the Conference is simply the transmittal of all of that material to the Association, and I shall forward it to the Secretary with the recommendation for reference as I have stated.

The programs for the meetings of the Conference have always been prepared by the committee in co-operation with the Executive Committee of the American Bar Association.

In addition to the specific matters that I have referred to, the Conference discussed generally in open forum (1) What are state and local bar associations doing to impress upon the people of their communities the vital importance of respect for law? (2) How can the influence of such associations in that field be increased? (3) What are the state and local bar associations doing to promote knowledge and understanding on the part of the people of their communities of the fundamental principles of American institutions? We had 99 delegates on our roll; the roll of our associations was called, each association reported through its representative and very briefly stated what it was doing, and what it hoped to do in the direction indicated by these three questions. I think every one of the gentlemen will agree that that discussion was not only instructive, but was inspiring. The result was that these three questions were transmitted to the state and local bar associations throughout the country with the request that they give consideration to them and report through their delegates at the next meeting of the Conference.

At the request of the Executive Committee the subject of becoming a Section of the American Bar Association was presented to the Conference, and the difficult questions arising out of the nature of the Conference and its future relationship to the Association were worked out satisfactorily, and By-Laws were submitted and unanimously approved by the Conference, and I understand unanimously approved by the Executive Committee of the American Bar Association.

Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances:

H. J. Bliss, of Missouri:

I received a letter from Mr. Jessup, who is somewhere in the mountains of Pennsylvania, that Judge Ryan of this city had been deputized by Mr. Jessup to read the report, but Judge Ryan fled to the mountains of Colorado, and suggested my name to Mr. Jessup, and that is the reason why I am here. I wish to read the letter forwarded to me by Mr. Jessup, as follows: