Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/353

This page needs to be proofread.


The Green Bag

report contended that these subjects were political rather than legal and were not within the purposes of the Associa tion. The minority report, on the other hand, strongly supported these policies. The majority report was approved. The Association clearly showed itself in doubt as to the need of a proposed Legislative Committee. The proposal that such a committee be appointed was sent to the Committee on Law Reform. The idea of the proponent, Edwin M. Abbott of Philadelphia, was that such a committee would be of value in presenting acts recommended by the Association. Alexander Simp son, Jr., said that a similar proposal, made about ten years ago, was voted down by the Association on the ground that the work of such a committee would have the semblance of a lobby. An attempt to modify the policy of the Association slightly, so that matters of partisan politics directly affecting the profession might be debated at the meetings, met with failure. It was proposed to amend the by-laws by substituting for the words "nor shall it take any partisan political action," the following: "but unless the matter be of special or peculiar interest to lawyers in their professional capacity, it, the Association, shall not consider or pass upon anything then the subject of political or factional controversy, or any other public or private matter." The suggested new language would, if adopted, have permitted the Associa tion to consider political matters which were of special or peculiar interest to lawyers in their professional capacity. A local government question gave rise to some perplexity, and the outcome was not such as to express unqualified confidence in the soundness of the plan proposed by the Special Committee on Reform in Township Law. This

committee recommended a proposed act by which the powers of townships would be vested in a board of three super visors, upon whom would be conferred the power to lay out roads, now vested in the Court of Quarter Sessions, to pass ordinances, regulate markets, es tablish a police and transact other local business subject to the general supervision of a town meeting of the electors. The proposed act greatly in creases the powers of townships, and introduces a system somewhat analogous to that of the New England town meet ing. Among other things, the act pro vides that an ordinance passed by the supervisors shall be subject to rejection or ratification by the town meeting. Criticism of this plan was based on the feeling that such a direct transplanting of the New England system was not necessary, that the town meeting might not be adapted to the more populous townships, and that while the powers of the townships of the second class might well be enlarged it was question able whether by the contemplated abolition of the distinction between first and second classes the townships would not be given too much power. As a result the subject was referred for further consideration to a special com mittee to be appointed by the incoming President. The following officers were elected: President, Hampton L. Carson, Phila delphia; vice-presidents, William D. Porter, Allegheny; James S. Moorehead, Westmoreland; Charles I. Landis, Lan caster; Isaac E. Hiester, Berks; William E. Rice, Warren; secretary, William H. Staake, Philadelphia; treasurer, Samuel E. Bashore, Cumberland. The new President elected, Hon. Hampton L. Carson, former AttorneyGeneral of Pennsylvania, and author of the monumental and scholarly "His-