The President: The next order of business is the report of the Committee. on Patent, Trade-Mark and Copyright Law, of which Mr. Wetmore, of New York, is Chairman. William A. Ketcham, of Indiana: I think Judge Taylor is the only member of that committee present, and he is not in the hall at the moment, and I would suggest that the report of that committee be passed for the present. The President: The Chair is proceeding a little prematurely, for these reports come up under the head of unfinished business. The first business of the morning should be a report from the General Council on the nomination of officers. Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island, Chairman of the General Council: The General Council have the honor of reporting, recommending the election of the following officers of the Association: For President: Henry St. George Tucker, of Virginia. For Secretary: John Hinkley, of Maryland. For Treasurer: Frederick E. Wadhams, of New York. For members of the Executive Committee to be elected: P. W. Meldrim, of Georgia; Platt Rogers, of Colorado; M. F. Dickinson, of Massachusetts; William P. Breen, of Indiana; they being the present incumbents. Also the following VicePresidents and members of the various Local Councils, which I will ask the Secretary to read. The list of Vice-Presidents and members of Local Councils was read by the Secretary. The President: Under the rule these nominations will lie over until we have disposed of the rest of the business before the meeting. We will now listen to the report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws, of which Mr. Eaton is Chairman. Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island, then read the report of the Committee on Uniform State Laws. (See the Report in the Appendix.) Charles F. Libby, of Maine: I move that the report be received and the recommendations adopted. The motion was seconded and was adopted. William L. January, of Michigan: About ten years ago the American Bar Association held an annual meeting in Detroit and many gentlemen here who attended that meeting well remember the delightful atmosphere and enjoyable breezes as compared with the heat of the past two days in St. Louis. I have received a communication from the Mayor of the city of Detroit extending an invitation to this Association to meet there in 1905. I have also received a communication from the President of the Detroit Bar Association extending an invitation and from the President of the State Bar Association co-operating with the Detroit Bar Association. In behalf of the Board of Commerce, the largest board of its kind, perhaps, in the Middle West, I have an invitation urging this Association to do the city of Detroit the distinguished honor of meeting there in 1905. I herewith present the letters and invitations and ask that the same may be referred to the Executive Committee. I can only add that we hope you will accept the hospitality of Detroit and come there next year. The President: The matter will be referred to the Executive Committee. Amasa M. Eaton, of Rhode Island: I wish to state that the eastern members of the Association earnestly desire the Association to meet at Narragansett Pier, in Rhode Island, next summer. It is a delightful spot, and lawyers from the West and from the South and from the interior of the country will be charmed with Narragansett Pier. The President: This invitation will also go to the Executive Committee. W. B. Swaney, of Tennessee: On behalf of Tennessee I desire to extend an invitation to the Association to meet at the famous Lookout Mountain. We have erected on top of that magnificent mountain a convention hall, and there are ample accommodations for all. The President: That invitation also will be referred to the Executive Committee. I will call for the report of the Committee on Indian Legislation. Everett E. Ellinwood, of Arizona: I have the honor to be the representative of the committee. to day. The report of the committee is printed and need not be read. Willis Van Deventer, of Wyoming: I move that the report be received and filed. The motion was seconded and was adopted. The Committee on Penal Laws and Prison Discipline. John H. Stiness, of Rhode Island, is chairman of that committee. In the absence of the Chairman, the report was read by Martin Dewey Follett, of Ohio. (See the Report in the Appendix.) Martin Dewey Follett: I move that the recommendation of the committee, that we endorse the proposition of the continuance of the professional study of delinquents, be approved. Joseph R. Edson, of the District of Columbia: I second that motion. The President: The question is on the filing of the report and the adoption of the specific resolution recommended by the committee. Joseph R. Edson, of the District of Columbia: I understand that this resolution has been adopted by ninety or more associations of either a state or national character. These associations are of a legal, religious or educational character. Now I desire to state that the main purpose of the work to which this resolution has reference is the study of the causes of crime, pauperism, defectiveness and other forms of abnormality with a view to lessening or preventing them, such study to be conducted by the best methods known to science and sociology. The work is fundamentally humanitarian. Our country pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the erection of monuments and for the study of rocks, plants and animals. It would seem proper that it pay out a few thousand dollars to study in a rigid, scientific way its greatest enemies— the criminal and other abnormal classes. The abnormal classes cost this nation more than five times as much as the total expenses of the federal government, yet the government gives little or nothing for scientific investigation of the causes and conditions of the evils involving this enormous expense with a view to lessening this expense by lessening these evils. In addition to the general scope of the work a few things might be mentioned desirable to find out: (1) What physical and mental characteristics may be common to reformatory inmates and unruly children in schools? (2) What physical characteristics may be common to the feeble-minded and dull children in schools? (3) The physical and mental differences between habitual criminals and criminals in general. Such a knowledge would make it possible to know about children in advance and better protect them from evils. In the case of the criminals such knowledge in advance would enable us better to protect the community. Exhaustive study of single typical criminals is valuable because they represent a large number. The more exact knowledge we have of inmates the better we can manage them in the institutions. Such work will bring more men of education and training into the service. As most of the inmates of reformatories and prisons are normal, any knowledge gained about them will be useful to the community at large. Any system of training or education that will help inmates of penal institutions to become good citizens is needed in the community at large. Proper and full statistics of the abnormal classes would alone justify this work. This requires not only a knowledge of statistics, but first-hand knowledge of the subject matter. The statistics must be interpreted; a pile of bricks does not make a house. This is the main reason so many statistics are useless. The work naturally falls under government control, as the institutions for the abnormal classes are already under such control. The university cannot properly do such work as the study of the large numbers which are necessary for sage conclusions, nor can private endowment gather matter of a more or less confidential nature from public institutions. The following statements as to the criminal are not based upon experimental research so much as upon the experience. of those who have studied criminals directly or who have had practical control of large numbers in prisons or reformatories: First. The prison should be a reformatory and the reformatory a school. The principal object of both should be to teach good mental, moral and physical habits. Both should be distinctly educational. Second. It is detrimental financially, as well as socially and morally, to release prisoners when there is probability of their returning to crime, for in this case the convict is much less expensive than the ex-convict. Third. The determinate sentence permits many prisoners to be released who are morally certain to return to crime. The indeterminate sentence is the best method of affording the prisoner an opportunity to reform without exposing society to unnecessary dangers. Fourth. The ground for the imprisonment of the criminal is, first of all, because he is dangerous to society. This principle avoids the uncertainty that may rest upon the decision. as to the degree of freedom of will, for upon this last prin |