This is the discipline that pertains to their membership in the Inns of Court. The plan here proposed approximates the Inns of Court as near, I suppose, as could be done under our form of government. I think it would be wise now to get this before the pub lic, not simply in our own discussions, but to have it before the public by presenting it to the legislature, to have sentiment aroused in behalf of some such move, to get public sympathy, and public sympathy is a necessity in favor of what we believe to be the true way of proceeding in respect to matters of this kind. I am assum ing, of course, that we believe in what is recommended, but if we do not believe in it, then of course it goes no further. But if we believe in what is recommended by this report, do not delay in presenting it to the legislature and to the public in such way that in due time because it takes time to get results in this countryin due time we will accomplish what is outlined in the report.

E. E. WHITTED: In order that we may get an expression of the views of the meeting I desire to second the motion of Mr. Schaetzel.

PRESIDENT GAST: The question before you now is the amendment to Mr. Pershing's motion, namely, that the resolution printed in the Committee's report be approved, concurred in and adopted. Is that correct?

JACOB V. SCHAETZEL: Yes.

And I would like to speak on that just a few moments, if I may, and call attention of the members of The Colorado Bar Association to some of the things that I have become familiar with as Secretary of The Denver Bar Association during the past two years. One of those things is that there is not now a complete list of lawyers in the Supreme Court Clerk's office. No one can tell at this time with any degree of definitenesss who is licensed as a practicing attorney in Colorado and who is not, who has died and who has not. We have attempted to obtain such a list, but the records some years back (which you may not know) were

"balled up"-for lack of a better word-by one of the clerks, and it was impossible to determine.

A situation like the following prevails, especially in the larger cities, like Denver. I saw the name of a lawyer listed that did not sound just right to my ears, one whose name had not come before me theretofore. Knowing that Denver is a large city and lawyers from the surrounding states and from all over the union are coming to practice in Colorado, attracted by the oil, no doubt, we have to be just a little careful. I called the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and asked if he had such a lawyer listed. He tells me this name does not appear. Now if I refer this to the Grievance Committee, is there any assurance that I can give them that that list is correct? I understand the records have been lost. The Justices here can correct me if that is not true.

Another thing has been discovered in Denver. The Daily Journal, a legal paper published in Denver, lists 940 lawyers in Denver. In a recent campaign to ascertain who were eligible for membership in our association, we attempted to find out who were lawyers and who were not, and out of the 940 notices which we first sent out, about 200 of them have since been returned with the notation that the persons have moved out of the state, that they have not practiced law for 25 years, that some of them never practiced law, and that others have never been admitted. But we were assured that in getting out this list every name had been checked with the Supreme Court list, and they are listed in Denver today as lawyers entitled to practice in this state.

It is quite a hopeless affair, when you get right down to the practical side of it. Now this proposed bill, if passed, would compel every lawyer who was interested to remain an active lawyer to keep his name on the list. It is not right that a man should take his degree or certificate and then engage in some business for 15 or 20 years entirely out of line with the practice of the law, and at the same time practice just enough law possible to complicate that which he is attempting to handle, not having kept up with current decisions and current law.

I believe that this question should come up, and I believe with Judge Platt Rogers that a discussion in the house of representatives and in the senate is one of the best ways to get this question before the people of the state of Colorado. Probably it will not be enacted into a law the first time it is presented; it may take us a couple of years.

E. C. STIMSON: If the purpose of this law is to give an authentic list of those who are entitled to practice the profession of the law in the state of Colorado I am not in favor of Mr. Schaetzel's motion. But I take it that that is nothing more than a remote incident to the main objects.

I am speaking rather earnestly, perhaps, and out of the depths of a recent experience. I do not want, personally, as a member of this Association to see this matter presented to the next legislature. I am not going to enlarge on that at all. I have engaged somewhat actively in endeavors which have brought to me some discouragement, and while I am most heartily in favor of everything that is contained in the report of that Committee, resolution and all, provided certain modifications of the law itself as proposed shall be made, I do not believe it is practicable or wise from any point of view to have this matter presented for legislative consideration until the public generally shall have been educated in the matter. "Shall the people or the lawyers select the judges?" As if those who promulgated that doctrine left to the people anything to say about the selection of the candidates who were opposed to those who have been recommended by their brothers of the bar, who certainly knew something of their qualifications! The people had no more to do with the selection. of the candidates who were opposed to those who were recommended by the bar than I have with selecting the King of Abys sinia-if there is such a person.

I think it would be unwise to try to get favorable legislative action on this proposition now, and I am thoroughly convinced that adverse legislative action at the next session of our Colorado. legislature would be a hindrance vastly greater than the postpone

ment of the matter until there can be such a thorough discussion. of the proposition as will enable the great body of the public at least to understand what the question is. We lawyers, or certain of us, did not succeed very well in a couple of months in making the people of Denver understand just what the issue was in our judicial campaign, and I hope the lawyers of this state will be sufficiently interested to see that between now and the time when this matter may be presented to the legislature there is at least a decent understanding of what it is about.

I hope this amendment suggested by Mr. Schaetzel may not prevail, as clearly and definitely as I usually agree with the gentleman on matters affecting the bar business.

L. WARD BANNISTER: It seems that our primary interest is to provide safe conduct for the measure which the Committee has adopted to enactment just as soon as possible. However, I share the fears of Judge Stimson that we shall not be able to see a bill enacted into a law at the coming session of the legislature. That session is only four months away. This bill could not pass unless it has behind it the lawyers of the state. No one else will understand it or attempt to understand it; and it therefore seems to me that Mr. Schaetzel's amendment or substitute motion is not the wisest course for us to follow.

But, on the other hand, it seems to me that there is something which could be done, subject, however, to a question I wish to ask the Chairman of the Committee, and that is this: I notice that the resolution is divided into three parts. The first is an approval of the plan by the State Bar Association as proposed by the American Bar Association. The other two paragraphs relate to the preparation of a bill and its presentation and passage through the legislature.

As I understand it, we are to see that local bar associations be organized throughout the state during the coming year where now they do not exist. It is a year for education, and one of the very best things upon which we can talk on local associations. is the measure now before us, and unless there be some reason to

me unknown why we could not adopt paragraph 1 of the Committee's resolution, I would suggest that we vote against the substitute or amended resolution and then we amend Mr. Pershing's original resolution so that we may go on record as approving the plan. In other words, we approve the plan, and then we have a basis upon which to educate the local bar associations. But if we go before them during the coming year without being able to say that this Association has approved the plan, I am afraid we shall be shooting wide of the mark.

CHARLES J. MUNZ: I should like to call to the attention of the Association the effect of section 7. It reads:

Every member of the State Bar shall, prior to the first day in July in each year, pay into the State Treasury as a license fee such a sum of money as shall be determined, from time to time, by the Board of Commissioners, and the fund thereby created shall constitute a separate fund to be disbursed by the State Treasurer on the order of the Board of Commissioners.

In talking this matter over last year with Mr. Justice Teller and Judge Dunklee we seemed to think that that was a great injustice. There is no limitation upon this as to age, either of the beginner or of the man who has perhaps lived his life, and perhaps a useful life, practiced law all his life, and not accumulated much money. Would it be just to impose a license fee upon a man when he has attained the age, we will say, of 65, the time we ought to retire, or perhaps earlier? I think if a bill of this sort is enacted into law there certainly ought to be some kind of limitation upon the time a man should pay the license fee, and when the beginner in the practice would be required to pay it. I know that there are any number of lawyers in Denver today who from their financial circumstances would be unable to pay any considerable license fee. I think for that reason many of them are without both the Denver and the State Associations. These may seem. trifling matters to those who have plenty, but it is otherwise with. those who have not much money.

WILBUR F. DENIOUS: At the recent meeting of the Amer