« PreviousContinue »
The work in New York City is no different from the work in other large cities. We have a regular office where complainants call, and are given a full opportunity to tell their stories. We take their affidavits and we formulate their complaints. We give to the accused a full opportunity to answer. We investigate the complaint, and we hear the answer of the accused, before we afford a hearing before the committee. Then the accused has an opportunity of appearing before the committee and cross-examining the complainant and of introducing evidence in his own behalf.
Up to the time that the matter is presented to the court everything is confidential. After that the court, where there is an issue of fact, sends the case to an official referee, and he reports, and then action is taken by the court upon his report.
THE LEGAL CLINIC. Mr. Charles A. Boston told of similar work prosecuted by the New York County Lawyers' Association and more particularly of the service rendered by the committee, of which he is chairman, in answering questions on legal ethics. In the course of a number of years this committee has answered 201 questions which have come, not only from New York and other parts of the United States, but from every part of the English-speaking world. Five hundred copies of questions and answers are printed and sent to the law schools of the United States and Canada and to the professional publications in the English-speaking countries. These answers have given body and form to the canons of ethics, building up a veritable common law of ethics.
Continuing Mr. Boston said:
The publicity which has been given to the activities of this committee has served in a measure to identify the Chairman with those activities, and naturally he is deluged with letters and inquiries and has a great deal of correspondence with lawyers all over the country. The Chairman answers these inquiries without binding the committee, of course, and always disclaiming to answer for the committee. The identity of an inquirer is never made known, because we early discovered that was the only advisable way to proceed. If the committee desired to have the
name of an inquirer and the identity of the person uncovered for any good reason that could be done. This plan has worked admirably.
SPECIAL WINTER MEETING.
The Association having adopted the resolution offered in the Section of Legal Education, calling for a conference on this subject, the Council of that Section requested the Council of the Conference of Bar Association Delegates to call a special meeting. It was arranged that a meeting of the Conference would be called for some time in February, 1922, in the city of Washington, at which meeting there will be considered means for making effective the resolution concerning minimum educational requirements for admission to practice in the various states.
OF THE SECTION OF PATENT, TRADE-MARK AND
COPYRIGHT LAW The section met in annual meeting at Hotel Sinton, Cincinnati, Ohio, August 31, 1921, at 2 P. M., the Chairman of the Section, A. C. Paul, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, presiding.
Upon motion of Mr. Church, of Washington, D. C., the Chairman appointed a committee consisting of Melville Church, of Washington, Robert H. Parkinson, of Chicago, and Walter F. Murray, of Cincinnati, to nominate officers of the section and a member of the council for the coming year.
The Chairman submitted a communication from the Commissioner of Patents respecting H. R. No: 7077, and upon motion of Mr. Jas. T. Newton, Washington, D. C., the Chairman was instructed to appoint a committee to prepare a report and resolution endorsing H. R. No. 7077, such report and resolution to be submitted by the Chairman of the section to the Association at its meeting on the following day. The Chairman appointed on this committee, Jas. A. Carr, of St. Louis; Jos. R. Edson, of Washington, D. C.; and Alfred M. Allen, of Cincinnati.
Mr. Edward S. Rogers submitted a draft of a bill revising the Federal Trade-Mark Statutes. After a full discussion motion was made by Mr. Rogers that the proposed bill and the work which has been done upon it, be referred to a committee to be appointed by the Chair, of which the Chairman of the section shall be a member, for further study and consideration and to report at the next meeting of the section.
This motion was adopted and the Chair appointed the following committee: Edward S. Rogers, Chicago, Chairman; Melville Church, James T. Newton and W. L. Symons, all of Washington, D. C.; Harry D. Nims, New York; Jas. A. Carr, St. Louis; and A. C. Paul, Minneapolis.
The nominating committee submitted the following nominations:
Chairman, A. C. Paul, Minneapolis; Vice-Chairman, Chas. E. Brock, Cleveland; Secretary, Alfred M. Allen, Cincinnati; Treasurer, Edward S. Rogers; Member of Council, Otto R. Barnett.
The officers so nominated were thereupon elected.
The committee appointed to draft a resolution endorsing H. R. 7077 submitted a report containing the following resolution:
That H. R. No. 7077 which has been favorably reported by the Committee on Patents of the House of Representatives and which is substantially identical as to salary provisions with the Nolan Bill, endorsed by the Patent Section, with the approval of the Bar Association at the St. Louis meeting, be endorsed and its speedy passage by Congress be recommended.
This report was accepted and the resolution offered by the committee was adopted and the Chairman was instructed to present the same to the Bar Association upon the call of reports from the Patent Section and to move its adoption by the Association.
There being no further business before the section, the meeting was adjourned sine die.
OF THE SECTION OF CRIMINAL LAW The second annual meeting of the Section of Criminal Law of the American Bar Association was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, Tuesday, August 30, 1921, at 2.30 P. M. and 8.30 P. M. Hon. Ira E. Robinson, of West Virginia, presided at both sessions.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Charles H. Elston, of Cincinnati, delivered the address of welcome. He also gave an interesting discussion on changes made in the law in Ohio, referring in particular to the abolition of the Indeterminate Sentence Act and the increase in penalties for different crimes.
Dean Wigmore, of the Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, Illinois, replied on behalf of the Section, calling attention to the differences in many states of the forms of the indeterminate sentence. He told of the practice in military.circles of giving a long determinate sentence, transferring the power of reduction of sentence to a board of clemency or pardon, and thought that such a system in civil life would meet the required needs.
W. 0. Hart of New Orleans, stated that such a change would be necessary in the Louisiana Act to bring about desired results. Edwin M. Abbott, of Philadelphia, and John G. Buchanan, of Pittsburgh, both told of the excellent results brought about by the Pennsylvania law, and commended that act, in which judges can fix both minimum and maximum in the sentences, as a proper one to follow.
Judge Katherine Sellers, of the Juvenile Court of Washington, D. C., and Mrs. Annette Abbott Adams, formerly assistant attorney-general of the United States, and now of San Francisco, Cal., took great interest in the discussions over the various subjects on the program. Mrs. Adams said:
Punishment should be swift, following the commission of a crime. All unnecessary delays should be obviated, but what is mostly needed is a