ican Bar Association at Philadelphia I had a talk with Judge Goodwin, the author of this bill, and I asked him this question, whether he was disposed to urge the adoption of this plan in the several states at this time. Judge Goodwin, of course, is thoroughly in accord with the plan, and wants it adopted in every state. But he said he was not disposed to urge the adoption of this plan unduly at this time, and he gave this as his reason: he said that nearly every lawyer to whom he had presented this proposition was at first against it, but he had yet to meet the lawyer who had given this plan thorough consideration and study who was not in the end convinced that it was the proper plan to be adopted.

It seems to me from the discussion that we have had here that it is plain that a large majority of the members are in favor of this plan, but so far as the details of the bill are concerned they are not so agreed. So it seems to me that the suggestion made by Mr. Bannister is the proper one, and in order to get that before the meeting I move as a substitute for all pending motions that the first resolution of the Committee be adopted.

CHARLES J. MUNZ: Which one is that?

PRESIDENT GAST: The first paragraph of the resolution.

The motion of Mr. Denious was seconded.

H. L. RITTER: I am ready to believe, after listening to what was said about the necessity of publicity and education, that the State Bar Association should pass the matter during the next year for discussion to the local bar associations. If there is to be an aggressive work in the organization of local bar associations, many of which now exist, these local associations at the suggestion of the State Association, should consider this bill during the year. We would then have at the next meeting of the State Bar Association a well considered digest of the opinion of the lawyers of the state. If we here ratify and approve we may be charged with not having a large enough representation here properly to commit the State Bar Association to it, but after a period of dis

cussion in local bar associations till next year we can take the proper action. It occurs to me that instead of passing the motion adopting and ratifying this, we should move by recommending that local bar associations during the coming year discuss this bill and act upon it, and then next year the State Bar Association will be in position to take action which will be fortified by the lawyers in the state. It seems to me that would be the better way to get the publicity of this thing started.

PRESIDENT GAST: The question is on Mr. Denious' motion, which the Chair understands to be this: That we adopt paragraph 1, but only paragraph 1, of the resolution; the balance of the report to be re-referred to the Committee to bring up a year hence for consideration at that time and further action. Are there any remarks on that motion?

L. P. KELLY: I feel that I am under obligation, in a sense, to speak to this meeting because of a remark that Mr. Bannister made, which is ahead of the truth, that before we can hope to crystallize public sentiment upon a measure of this kind and get it through the legislature it must have the whole-hearted support of the lawyers. Now speaking as a representative of the Pueblo County Bar Association I must bring you the bad news that the lawyers of the state are not solidly behind this proposition. At a rather slightly attended meeting the Pueblo County Bar Association discussed this matter and adopted a resolution that they did not want to be considered as favoring it, but would reserve it for future study and consideration. There was very decided opposition to the measure and whole-hearted support of it, but the action of that local association at least indicated something of what we are to meet at this time among the lawyers throughout the state, and illustrates the wisdom of Mr. Pershing's suggestion that the matter be left in the hands of the Committee for another year for the purpose of education of our brethren at the bar, so that we can present at least a large majority of the lawyers in favor of the proposition before it is put before the legislature. I

fear action on it now, and even the adoption of a resolution favoring it, would be very harmful to it, and certainly presentation of it to the legislature at this time, considering the sentiment of the lawyers as expressed by that one small meeting, would be fatal.

JAMES H. PERSHING: It occurs to me that the Committee might possibly have the privilege of closing the remarks. I did not amplify the reasons for making the suggestion that has led to this discussion, but the reason, briefly, is this:

This resolution, as you will see, has three steps. First, merely the approval of the plan, which does carry with it ultimate legislative action; second, a specific bill; and third, the presentation of that particular bill to the next legislature.

Now the State, Bar Association might agree to proposition. 1 without adding proposition 2, and it might adopt proposition 2 and not be ready to present the matter to the coming legislature, as was suggested by Judge Stimson. From the remarks here I think I might assume that in general the plan is meeting with considerable approval at this meeting. But this body is comparatively small. I am not sure that any meeting of the State Bar Association is likely to be much more representative than this, but suppose this substitute resolution were adopted, then what position would the State Bar Association be in with respect to an educational program? It would be this, gentlemen, that this body, this particular meeting, had committed itself to a plan, thereby at once, I would assume, arousing possibly the antagonism of those who are not present and had no opportunity to hear the discussion or take part in it. They would be a little more likely to disapprove the plan, and thereby would be weakened the ultimate presentation of the matter to the legislature that would come with the recommendation of the bar.

Of course I do not desire to assume any greater responsibility than this body might be willing to give to the Committee, yet the Committee undoubtedly would be willing, particularly under such directions as this body may give to it, to present the report or the substance of the report to the various local associations, and

see to it that the matter is as thoroughly discussed as possible, and thereafter at a proper time perhaps take some kind of a straw vote, such as the Literary Digest is so fond of carrying out from time to time, and come before this meeting a year from now with a report that upon a vote of all the members of the associations whose addresses could be ascertained-particularly with the assistance of Mr. Schaetzel!—that they find that out of possibly 1500 members of the bar we had succeeded in securing the general approval of say 1200. Now if a report of that kind could be made to a representative meeting like this, I am quite sure that the meeting would be more disposed to give the whole plan its hearty approval than it would be under different circumstances.

I would very much dislike to risk a disapproval even of part 1 of this resolution, or to go before the state bar with an educational program in which it might be said that the plan did not receive the hearty approval of those who discussed it at Colorado Springs. That would be more harmful, in my judgment, than to leave the matter just where the Committee has recommended, laying upon the Committee any obligations you please with respect to an educational program.

But let us not in any way appear to prejudice the matter for others who may and should consider the matter also. I believe that the Committee would prefer, if the proposers of these motions are willing, to let it stand as recommended by the Committee.

W. F. DENIOUS: With the consent of my second, I will be glad to withdraw my motion. And perhaps I can get Mr. Schaetzel to do the same, and that would put us in the position Mr. Pershing would like to have us in.

PRESIDENT GAST: Mr. Denious' motion is out of the road, as I understand it, withdrawn with the consent of the second. The motion now is on Mr. Schaetzel's substitute, the amendment to adopt the entire resolution.

JACOB V. SCHAETZEL: I do not want to insist upon anything

that a considerable proportion of the other gentlemen do not want to do. But I can state to you the idea of about 500 lawyers, and that is that The Colorado Bar Association does not do anything at any time under any consideration, and that is why there are not more here. As Secretary of the Denver Bar Association I did my level best to get the Denver lawyers here. We ran two distinct articles in our little monthly publication asking them to attend, that it would be an interesting meeting, and on just such matters as come before us now we lack activity, are afraid to go ahead, even tho we all agree we are right. That makes it impossible for us to go forward and to do the work that as lawyers we are bound to to, and even tho the world, you might say, is opposed to the members of the legal profession and particularly the individual lawyer, nevertheless we have had to take up our burden and work ahead and go ahead if we thought we were right.

The assumption is that there is going to be an adverse legislature. That is not a foregone conclusion. What we want is a thorough discussion of this subject. There is nothing before us unless it is my resolution at this time that will bring it forward. If this Committee would say, Yes, provide us with money and we will send out bills or we will send out a speaker to these local bar associations, all right; but do something. What we want to do is to get something done.

I withdraw my substitute motion.

PRESIDENT GAST: Does Mr. Schaetzel's second agree to the withdrawal of the substitute?

L. P. KELLY: I merely seconded the motion for the purpose of getting it before us. I withdraw the second.

PRESIDENT GAST: The question before you at the moment is Mr. Pershing's original motion.

L. WARD BANNISTER: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee has performed a very important piece of work for this