was, however, consulted in the selection of Auxiliary Boards; and the importance of the work was quickly recognized by the courts, the Appellate Divisions in the First and the Second Departments making a rule that engagement of counsel in work under the Selective Service Regulations was to be accepted as an excuse for the adjournment of cases in all the courts. We have been informed that in some of the States the work occupied so much of the time of the lawyers that the courts were adjourned for considerable periods of time.

It is not possible at this time to give definite information as to the percentage of registrants who availed of the services of the Legal Advisory Boards. Since they were constituted under the Regulations and had their official status confirmed by an oath of office taken as officers of the Federal Government, it is, perhaps, not unnatural that among the ignorant and the suspicious, misrepresentations should have been made and feelings of antagonism engendered, which have united to prevent some registrants from availing of the services of the Boards lest they should be used as instruments of the Government to induct registrants into the army, even though they might be entitled to deferred classification or even to exemption. The Government, however, wisely insisted that the law should be administered through local agencies and with reference to the character, occupation and susceptibilities of localities; and the justice with which, in the main, the Regulations have been enforced by the neighbors of the registrants themselves, has tended to dissipate the misunderstanding and prejudice. To some extent no doubt the propaganda of our enemies invaded the local Exemption Districts and sought to reduce the efficiency of the Selective Service sys

tem. The foresight of the Government, however, and the experience of the Local Boards and the co-operation of the Legal Advisory Boards, reduced to a minimum the danger of such interference, and up to the present time the classification provided for in the Regulations has been a most gratifying success.

Henry W. Taft, of New York:

Mr. President, I should like to offer for adoption by this Association, the following minute:

"The New York State Bar Association affirms its unwavering loyalty to the Nation and pledges the united support of the bar of the State to the Government of the United States in the vigorous prosecution of the war. We rejoice that the legal profession has been called upon by the President to give its aid in an important way in the classification of our citizens who are to compose our Army. We take pride in the patriotic and zealous manner in which this duty has been performed; for we believe that the raising and equipment and transportation of our military forces, should be the chief concern of every true American citizen, in accordance with his opportunity and to the extent of his ability.

While criticism of such preparation, if based on a patriotic desire for the effective prosecution of the war, should not be discouraged and is sometimes helpful, we denounce opposition springing from political motives, indifferent patriotism, or downright disloyalty. We suffer with scant patience assertions of the sanctity of free speech from those who oppose the war on narrow and technical views of our rights under International Law. The country has no time to listen to the subtle distinctions of men whose speech gives

aid and comfort to the enemy. If such contentions do not conceal hurtful and disloyal propaganda, at least they hamper the Government in the speed and effectiveness of war preparations.

We have an abiding belief in the justice of our cause. In disregard of International Law, and against our solemn and repeated warnings, Germany persisted in an inhuman submarine warfare; and when American lives were lost there was no recourse but war. But reparation for loss of life is not the sole purpose of the war, for the defeat of the Central Powers is necessary if civil liberty is to be preserved throughout the world. The German conception of the state is, based upon an inexorable philosophy which demands, and cannot exist without, an autocratic government, and that in turn would fail if it were not sustained by military force at home and by implacable methods of warfare abroad. It is a philosophy which exalts the idea of force and would transmute the world into an armed camp, and the arts, the sciences, the humanities and religion, would stand still or retrograde while the nations of the earth were engaged in a struggle for selfpreservation."

I move the adoption of the minute.

The motion was duly seconded and unanimously carried by a rising vote.

George W. Wickersham, of New York:

I move that the report of the Committee be received and placed on file.

The motion was duly seconded and carried.

The President:

The next business is the report of the Committee on Law Reform.

Henry W. Taft, of New York, presents the report as follows:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LAW REFORM

To the New York State Bar Association:

The Committee on Law Reform begs leave to submit the following report:

The most important project of reform of the law now engaging attention in this State is that which seeks to simplify the procedure in our courts. This subject has received the especial attention of the Committee to Examine the Practice Act, and has thus been taken out of the scope of the work of this Committee. Ordinarily numerous suggestions for reforming the law are considered by this Committee, but public attention is so concentrated upon the war, and upon legislation more or less closely connected with it, that it would be useless to bring forward reforms looking to the general development in other directions of our system of jurisprudence. Accordingly, the report of the Committee is largely confined to matters referred to it by the Association at the last annual meeting, or those which received attention in its last report. Before dealing with these matters, however, a general observation suggested by recent political events will not be untimely; for we would be blind, indeed, to the portents upon the political horizon if we did not see that they point to a revival of discussions long dormant as to the administration of justice.

Already peoples long accustomed to political systems which have deprived them of what we regard as inalienable rights, find themselves clothed with political power; and it is the hope and expectation of the lovers of liberty everywhere that the opportunity now afforded to the

Russian people may not long be withheld from the Teutonic peoples to the west, and that it may in time enable them also permanently to check the world-ambition of their autocratic war lords. That the Russian people suddenly clothed with political power should show ineptitude or indecision is not strange or discouraging; for the dawn of great struggles for liberty is never cloudless; but it is interesting for lawyers to note that one of the earliest reforms in which the aspirations of the Russian revolutionists took definite shape was directed at the administration of justice; for it has been reported in the newspapers that a decree of the Bolsheviki regime proposes to abolish all law courts and lawyers, and to set up in their place revolutionary tribunals. New courts of justice are to be substituted, consisting of a permanent local judge, elected by the people, and two jurymen, who are to be designated by the local Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates. These courts are designed to be the people's courts and are to have jurisdiction limited to cases which involve amounts not exceeding 3,000 rubles and to criminal cases where the penalty on conviction does not exceed two years' imprisonment. There is to be no appeal from the judgment of these courts, and decisions and verdicts. are to be governed by laws formerly existing only to the extent that "they have not been abolished by the revolution and do not counteract the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary justice." However extreme and radical such. provisions may seem to us, we would not wisely ignore them as signs of the times; and who can say that they do not foreshadow simpler methods of judicial procedure and more direct and speedy determination of questions of human and property rights?