« ZurückWeiter »
if they are persons of good character, and help to accomplish those things for which the institution stands and toward which it is working. I think the length of time that is mentioned in the amendment as it is proposed is altogether too great. I believe that after a young man has become a member of the Bar, has worked at his profession for a year and has shown himself to be the kind of a man who is acceptable to the members of the Association, his joining this Association at that time is not only proper but should be desired by every one of us.
I agree with Judge Stimson; I want the young men to come in here. I am going to vote for this as it stands.
Is there anything else to be said? I would suggest that it will have to be changed very materially, or else if we have a very old or very distinguished member of the Bar moving from some other State to this State, he has got to practice here for five years before he can be a member of this Association.
Lewis S. Young:
Well, that was not the intention, Mr. President.
While we are waiting, the membership may be interested in this telegram:
"Manitou, Colo., July 2.
Hon. Lucius Hoyt, Secretary Bar Ass'n, Colorado Springs, Colo.:
The Chair will say that Mr. Justice Brewer will be informed promptly of the hour.
F. E. Gregg (resuming discussion of proposed amendment): As I understand it, the present rule simply limits it to one year and has been in effect practically ever since this organization was formed. We have never experienced any difficulty so far,
Not that I have heard of.
F. E. Gregg:
It having been eminently satisfactory all this time, I do not see any reason for a change.
The amendment by Mr. Young is to insert after “period of one year," the words: "and who has practiced his profession for a period of five years in this or any other State." That is the amendment. The question is upon this amendment to the amend
Henry McAllister, Jr.:
I am in hearty accord with what Judge Hallett and Judge Stimson have said upon this subject. I believe if any of us will go back to the first five years of our practice at the Bar, we can realize what an encouragement would be held out to us if we could become members of an Association whose business it is, according to its constitution and by-laws, to advance the science of jurisprudence and increase the interest in the profession. And it seems to me that with our present careful examination of applicants for membership in the Association and the fact that we have had no trouble heretofore in practice under the old rules, and in further consideration of the interest which would undoubtedly be taken by young men who are deemed worthy of membership, in the work of the Association, it would be a hardship not only for our Association but for the young practitioners at the Bar if they were barred from membership in this Association. Therefore I am in hearty sympathy with the sentiment already expressed against this amendment to the amendment.
E. L. Regennitter:
There is another matter in this amendment, as it reads,-in the section as it originally stood,-which it seems to me is fully as important. And that is, that under this by-law, any County Judge of this State who is a layman-and we have quite a number -is eligible to membership in this Association. But I think it is
unnecessary to amend in that particular, or in the particular in which this amendment is now offered, because I think that when an applicant can be rejected by only five votes against him, the section is very good as it stands with this amendment as published. Lewis S. Young:
There is no one who is a better friend of the young professional man, particularly in the legal profession, than I. No one has ever taken more interest or shown them more encouragement than I. But it does seem to me that we all have to get into our profession somewhat gradually, and it is no hardship for a young man now-a-days to do the same thing. This Association is supposed to be made up of representative members of the profession, and one year's practice of a man's profession is hardly a full guarantee of his ultimate standing in the profession, and it puts us in the position of saying to the young man who has made a creditable showing for a year that we are not quite sure now whether we want him as a member, and we must let him present his application and reject it. Now, I believe it would be much better for the young men of the State instead of taking chances on them, and much better for the young men themselves, instead of being rejected occasionally, to let them understand that they must acquit themselves creditably for a period of five years, and at that time they can look forward to admission into the Association. As a consequence, they can expect, within that period, to be admitted, and we will have a good, valid reason for refusing all their applications during that period.
It seems to me there is much to be said on both sides of this question. The suggestions which have been made against the amendment are persuasive; but there are those which could be made in favor of the amendment which I think would be worthy the consideration of the members of this Association. Since the motion was made and seconded by me, and since the reasons against it have been heard, I realize that it is a more important question than it first appeared to me to be. I am inclined to believe that
the proper disposition of it would be to let it come up in regular order of proposing amendments rather than in this somewhat summary manner. This would permit members of the Association opportunity for more mature reflection before passing upon it finally. The President:
We will vote upon Mr. Young's amendment first. The question is before you. All those in favor of the amendment to be added to this amendment will say aye; contrary no. The amend
ment is lost.
The vote now is on the original amendment to Section 4.
Lucius W. Hoyt:
Mr. President, it seems to me that Mr. Reginnitter's suggestion should receive consideration. Of course our by-laws were copied from Pennsylvania, and this provision regarding any State or Federal Judge residing in this State may have had some-there may have been some reason for it there. There is none here. I will put it differently: That if a person is a State Judge, outside of the County Judges, he is necessarily a member of the Bar. So that if we strike out the words "State or," making it read, "Any member of the Bar of Colorado or any Federal Judge residing in this State," we will have it, it seems to me, as we wish it, and bar laymen who are County Judges. I therefore move, as an amendment to the original motion, to strike out the words "State or."
Seconded by Mr. Regennitter.
You have heard this motion. Is there anything to be said upon it?
Might not that bar out members of the Bar of other States who do not reside here?
No, I do not think so, Mr. Grozier. There is another provision in the by-laws by which they may be elected as honorary members of the Association.
The question is upon striking out the words "State or" in this printed amendment as you have it.
Henry H. Clark:
It seems to me that that amendment will hardly accomplish the purpose desired by Mr. Hoyt. The first part of this amendment provides that "Any member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Colorado residing and practicing in this State," etc. That would exclude judges of the State courts, as I understand it, by merely striking out the words "State or," as proposed.
No, you are wrong about that, because every other judge but a County Judge is necessarily a member of the Bar. Henry H. Clark:
But the amendment says, "residing and practicing in this State." A judge is not practicing while on the bench.
Well, he is residing in the State, if not practicing here, and he does not lose his prerogatives as a lawyer.
Henry II. Clark:
I would suggest that the amendment would be clearer if it read as now, with the further addition: "Or who has been admitted to practice in this State." It is not "residing or practicing" it is "residing and practicing." There is a complication there, in my judgment.
George W. Musser:
It seems to me that Mr. Clark is right in his contention there that "any member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Colorado residing and practicing in this State" would exclude judges, because judges are not practicing while on the Bench. As we have it worded there it would be "residing and practicing."
Well, the Chair will rule that that is such a technical ruling that he will not entertain it-that any judge is not residing and practicing here while on the bench. He is the most active prac
titioner we have, generally.