especially until the last few years, in reaching legislation which will tend to make the criminal a better man when he leaves the prison than he was when he went into it.

We have now in this country over 100,000 men in the state prisons, which is an endless mill into which we are sending the grist every year, and the grist of two and four and ten years ago is coming out. The men coming out are worse in 99 out of 100 cases than when they went in, and as long as you have that system of dealing with crime you are not going to accomplish any practical result, and it seems to me if this organization is ever to accomplish any practical result which is what we should attempt to accomplish we have got to devote our time to dealing with the extent and the character of punishment. My observation has been that there are as many if not more miscarriages of justice hidden behind the stone walls and prison bars of our great institutions throughout the country than those which are paraded in the public press and which the public at large know something about. If a man has committed an offence for which the punishment of one year would be adequate and that man is given a sentence of five years, there is as much a miscarriage or a greater miscarriage of justice than there would be otherwise, and not only that, when that man comes out of the prison he is an enemy of society instead of being a reformed person.

The next business was the report of the Committee on Organization of Courts. An elaborate report of this subject was presented by Professor Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School, and the report was received with much interest.

Mr. MacChesney moved that a society of Military Law be created as a section of the American Institute to deal with problems arising in connection with the exercise of military authority; the motion was carried and the matter referred to the Executive Board for consideration.


The Institute met at 2 P. M. Thursday afternoon, September 4, Chief Justice Winslow of Wisconsin temporarily in the chair.

The report, as printed, of the Committee on Indeterminate Sentence and Release on Parole and Pardon was presented by the Chairman, Edwin M. Abbott of the Pennsylvania Bar, who also moved that a committee be created to consider the question of the employment of prisoners and compensation for their work. He stated that interlocked with parole is the work of fitting the prisoner for parole. The matter was referred to the Executive Committee.

Judge Osborne, of New Jersey, then spoke in part as follows:

I hope that the Executive Committee will act favorably on this suggestion. It is a matter of extreme importance. New Jersey passed such a law providing for the employment and compensation of prisoners in 1911, an act drafted by me when I was a member of the New Jersey legislature, and we are now beginning to work under that act. If the committee is appointed I hope they will have an opportunity to look at it, because I think it is a very good workable act. Then there is the other viewpoint aside from the interest that we all feel in the advantage of paying prisoners and families, it will assist the judge in the imposition of sentence very often, if he knows the family of the prisoner is being provided for in some way. One of the greatest difficulties that I have in determining what sentence to impose is the fact that I am taking a man away from a family, and preventing him from obtaining support for a wife and ofttimes money for small and dependent children, and it is one of the greatest difficulties I think that must confront every judge who has to impose a prison penalty, and if we could realize that the state was doing something to take care of these dependent families we could handle the question of the imposition of penalties especially where they involve imprisonment much more satisfactorily.

Judge Norcross of Nevada then spoke in part as follows:

We have a unique situation in the State of Nevada. The constitution made the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General and the Governor a parole and pardoning board,

with the exception that you cannot pardon except with the vote of the Governor, but he must have the vote of two others to act. We can parole with any three of the five members, and acting in that way whenever a case presents circumstances which it seems to us justify paroling, we parole, and we revoke paroles occasionally and then grant a parole again. The only paroles that we have had occasion to revoke have been due in most instances to drunkenness. That has been the situation also in California and in cases where paroles have been revoked for trivial violations of the rules we generally re-parole after six months.

The reports of the Committees on Judicial Probation and Suspended Sentence, and on Criminal Statistics were deferred until the next session.

The report of the Committee on Nominations was received, and the nominees suggested by it were elected on one ballot.

The report of the Secretary for the year of 1912 was then received. In connection with his report the Secretary spoke as follows:

"I desire to bring the attention of the members here to the desirability of organizing state societies. That is a work which of course can only be carried on by men interested in the particular locality, and the hope of the Secretary is that several such organizations may be set on foot during the coming year."

Various suggestions on the matter of organizing state societies were then received from Dean Vance of Minnesota, Judge Myers of Indiana, Judge Osborne of New Jersey, Mr. Baldwin of the District of Columbia, Judge DeCourcy, of Massachusetts, Mr. Herbert of Columbia, South Carolina, Dr. Sears of Vermont, Mr. Hart of Louisiana, and Mr. Abbott of Pennsylvania.

The treasurer's report was then presented, and also the report of the managing editor of the journal, Professor Gault, who requested that law teachers and others should send in to the Journal more frequently their comments on judicial decisions and upon newly passed or proposed legislation affecting crime.

The Committee on Resolutions made a report tendering the thanks of the Institute to the Montreal Committee on Arrangements, to Frank B. Kellogg, to J. C. Walsh, and Moorfield Storey

for their addresses, to Chief Justice Riddell of the Supreme Court of Ontario, to the University Club, to the press of Montreal, and to the Hotel Windsor.

A resolution expressing the thanks of the Institute was extended to the retiring president, Justice Orrin N. Carter; and also to the Secretary, Professor Eugene A. Gilmore, not alone for the work of the past year, but for his efficient work from the very beginning of the organization.

Adjourned sine die.



[NOTE. The following Canons of Professional Ethics were adopted by the American Bar Association at its thirty-first annual meeting at Seattle, Washington, on August 27, 1908, and they are reproduced in the present volume pursuant to the resolution of the Association. See A. B. A. Reports, Vol. XXXIII, pages 86 and 572.]


In America, where the stability of courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its administration. The future of the republic, to a great extent, depends upon our maintenance of justice pure and unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct and the motives of the members of our profession are such as to merit the approval of all just men.



No code or set of rules can be framed which will particularize all the duties of the lawyer in the varying phases of litigation or in all the relations of professional life. The following canons of ethics are adopted by the American Bar Association as a general guide, yet the numeration of particular duties should not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative, though not specifically mentioned:

1. The Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts.-It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for

« ForrigeFortsett »