Some of these resolutions do not relate to matters within the functions of this Committee on Law Reform. Certain of them appear to relate to matters which are already sufficiently regulated by law in this State. Certain others appear to fall within the functions of the Committee on Law Reform, which, however, is not at this time prepared to report practical methods for carrying out in this State the recommendations of the said Conference. We accordingly recommend that the resolutions of the said Conference in relation to the systematic study of the actual administration of justice and the actual effect of anachronistic legal institutions, rules and documents, be referred to this Committee for its future consideration and report to this Association; that the recommendations of the resolution of the said Conference in relation to legal aid societies be referred to a special committee to be designated by the President for that purpose; that the resolution of the said Conference in reference to the elevation of the standards of the profession be referred to the Committee on Legal Ethics of this Association for its further consideration and report; that the resolution of the said Conference in respect to a relationship of friendly co-operation in disposing of grievances against members of the bar be referred to the Committee on Grievances and the Committee on Legal Ethics of this Association as a joint committee; and that the resolution of the said Conference in respect to war work be referred to a special committee to be appointed by the President with power to co-operate with other Associations or Committees as they may deem appropriate during the pendency of the war and until further order of this Association, along lines recommended in said resolution, and that the President of this Association be empowered and be requested to appoint three delegates from this Association to the next Conference provided for in the resolution of the last Conference. For the Committee, HENRY W. Taft, Chairman. If there be no objection to grouping all of these recommendations of the Committee in a single motion, and unless some gentleman wishes to discuss any one of the numerous propositions, I move you, sir, that these recommendations of the Committee be adopted by the Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried. The President: The recommendations are adopted. The next is the report of the Committee to consider the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals. George W. Wickersham, of New York, presented the report as follows: REPORT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THE SALARY OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURT To the New York State Bar Association: The Committee appointed pursuant to the following resolution adopted at the last annual meeting of the Association, viz., "Resolved, That a committee of fiye be appointed to consider the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, and to report at the next session of this body their recommendation ", hereby reports: That it has given careful consideration to the subject referred to them in this resolution. The salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals, unlike those of the Justices of the Supreme Court, are not fixed by the Constitution. The Judiciary Law, section 50, fixes the salary of the Chief Judge at $10,500 per annum and of the Associate Judges at $10,000 per annum, in addition to which it is provided that the Chief Judge and the Associate Judges shall each receive $3,700 per annum as an allowance in lieu of the expenses hitherto allowed him by law. It is anomalous that in our judicial system the salaries of the Justices of the Supreme Court should be fixed by the Constitution and the compensation of the Judges of the highest court the Court of Appeals - be determined only by statute. This difference, however, is due to accident rather than to design of the framers of the Constitution of 1894. Prior to 1909, the compensation of the members of both courts was fixed by statute. ary 16th, 1909, the Senate, and on February 17th, 1909, the Assembly, passed a concurrent resolution for the submission to the people at the general election to be held in that year of an amendment to section 12, Article VI, of the Constitution, which, among other things, fixed the salaries of Justices of the Supreme Court. On April 6th of the same year, the Senate and the Assembly passed a concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to section 7, article VI, of the Constitution, which, among other things, fixed the salaries of Judges of the Court of Appeals. This amendment, however, was required to be submitted to the people at the general election of 1910. The amendment first referred to was carried in 1909, but the second amendment failed at the On Febru election of 1910, resulting in the present difference in the methods of fixing the salaries of the Judges of the two courts. Section 12 of article VI, prior to the amendment of 1909, contained a provision forbidding the increase or diminution of the compensation of the Judges of the Court of Appeals or of the Justices of the Supreme Court during their official terms, but this provision was omitted in the amendment of 1909, doubtless because it was deemed no longer necessary, inasmuch as the proposed amendments took from the Legislature the power of regulating the salaries of those Judges and Justices, fixed the same in the Constitution, and forbade any other compensation or allowance, and for the further reason. probably that it was assumed that the amendment relating to the compensation of the Judges of the Court of Appeals would be approved at the election of 1910. So far as the provisions of section 12 are concerned, therefore, the compensation of the Judges of the Court of Appeals would seem to be outside of its purview. Section 9 of Article X, however, is as follows: "No officer whose salary is fixed by the Constitution shall receive any additional compensation. Each of the other State officers named in the Constitution shall during his continuance in office receive a compensation to be fixed by law which shall not be increased nor diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed; nor shall he receive to his use any fees or perquisites of office or other compensation." As has been pointed out, the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Appeals are not fixed by the Constitution, but these Judges are undoubtedly State officers, and as such are within the provisions of the second paragraph. The Constitution in several places refers to the "offices" held by the Judges (e. g. sections 7, 8, 10), and the Judges are undoubtedly State officers, as they are elected by the people of the entire State. (See also article XIII, section 1, section 5.) The definition of State officer given in the Public Officers Law (chapter 47 of the Consolidated Laws) includes every officer for whom all the electors of the State are entitled to vote, and, therefore, embraces the Judges of the Court of Appeals. In our opinion, therefore, the compensation of Judges of the Court of Appeals can only be increased by constitutional amendment. It may be that the allowance for expenses now regulated by section 50 of the Judiciary Law might be increased, but we are not willing to recommend the adoption of that indirect method of increasing the judicial compensation. Whether or not the present is an opportune time to attempt to secure a constitutional amendment to increase the salary of the Judges is a matter which we submit to the judgment of the Association. GEO. W. WICKERSHAM, January 11, 1918. For the Committee. Upon motion duly made and seconded the report was received and placed on file. George W. Wickersham, of New York: Mr. President, the Committee was unwilling to recommend any procedure under this report; but bearing in mind the fact that any constitutional amendment dealing with the subject must be passed by two successive Legislatures, and that unless a movement be commenced this year a long delay will ensue, I would like to move that this Association, acting by itself or through some committee, cause to be introduced in the Legislature a pro |