« PreviousContinue »
nine floor, for the purpose of creating new floor space for the administrative offices of the sociology department. As one result of this change the ventilation of this portion of the library has become a problem which the authorities are now seeking to solve. Sociology now occupies approximately 885 square feet of floor space within the law department.
In connection with the recent changes, the director of the State Library has recently stated that sociology constituted a subject of which law formed but one-tenth part, but that law nevertheless already had three-tenths of all the library space devoted to the subject of sociology. As the latter subject is given its ten-fold value as compared with law, merely by virtue of an arbitrary schedule of subject values recognized only by some librarians, this argument, it is submitted, can scarcely satisfy the members of the legal profession as to the advisability of allowing the library quarters hitherto devoted to law to be invaded or even relatively reduced in extent.
The State Association should cry a halt upon any further inroads upon law library space for any purpose whatsoever. Even now there is under advisement a proposition to bring in from the general library some 15,000 to 20,000 books on sociological subjects and place them within the law library space, on the theory that law is part of the general subject of sociology. This would necessitate taking a corresponding number of law books from the shelves of the law library and placing them in inaccessible "book stacks" in the fourth story of the Capitol. When it is considered that in order to keep the law library up to date some 2,200 law volumes are annually added, requiring each year some 350 additional feet of shelf room, and at this rate of increase all the available
room for bookcases on the law library floor and on the mezzanine floor now used for law will be entirely exhausted within the next three years, it can be realized how important it is that the law library space be kept intact.
In connection with the relation of the State Association, representing, as it does, the lawyers of the State to these matters, we beg leave to refer to a report made to the Board of Regents some years ago by a committee, of which Regent Robert S. Hale was chairman, in the course of which he said: "In reference to the law department, it seems to your committee sufficient to say that the Legislature has declared it to have been established for the use of the officers of the Government, the Courts and the Bar as a library in which shall be gathered books to which such officers may be required to refer in the exercise of their duties."
Mr. Hale voiced the true idea of the law library of the State. It is not merely such a portion of the State Library as may be predetermined by empiric librarianism. It is the instrument of the Bar, as well as of the officers of Government and of the Courts, placed ready to our use for the benefit of the people of the State.
In order that the relations between the law library as an institution and the Bar of the State may be made closer and that the development of the library may be kept in touch with the best thought in our profession, we herewith submit, in behalf of the Albany County Bar Association, the following resolutions for adoption by the State Association:
WHEREAS, The law library of the State was established for the use of the Bar of the State, as well as for the use of the officers of the Government and of the Courts, and,
WHEREAS, The proper development of the said library can be materially aided by the co-operation and interest of the legal profession;
Resolved, That the President of this Association appoint a standing committee to investigate, consider and make recommendations concerning the management, development and character of the State Law Library, and with power to represent this Association generally in all matters touching said library.
Dated ALBANY, January 18, 1904.
J. C. E. SCOTT,
WILLIAM S. ELMENDORF,
E. T. Lovatt, of New York:
Mr. President, I think a resolution should be offered thanking Mr. and Mrs. Fiero for their delightful reception to our Association held yesterday, and I move the adoption of such a resolution.
You have heard the motion that the Association tenders its thanks for the very delightful reception given by Mr. and Mrs. Fiero.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Fiero presented the following:
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAW REFORM.
To the New York State Bar Association:
The Committee on Law Reform reports as follows: At the last annual meeting the following was adopted: "Resolved, That the writers of the papers relative to the present judicial system and procedure be requested to
formulate their views for the action of the Committee on Law Reform, and that such committee be requested to take proper action thereon."
This resolution was understood to refer to the papers on "The Independent Judge," by Martin W. Littleton; "The Supreme Court Dilemma," by Simon Fleischmann, and "Further Reforms in Procedure," by Edward B. Whitney. Communications have been had with the writers of the several papers with reference to their subject-matter by way of suggestions for recommendations of a character which will facilitate the adoption of such reforms referred to as might be deemed desirable. Very many of the questions raised seem to be foreclosed by the provisions of the present Constitution, and to be so interwoven with the judiciary article as to make it, in view of the difficulty of procuring constitutional amendments, almost impracticable to obtain very many desirable reforms, without a thorough revision of the article in question. One, and perhaps the most important of the matters to be considered, relates to the method in which our intermediate appellate tribunal is constituted and appointed.
The most serious difficulty in this respect arises from the interference with the business of the Supreme Court at Trial and Special Terms by the designation of Justices of that Court to the Appellate Division. This situation arises from the constitutional provision which provides for such designation, thus disarranging the judicial force in the respective districts of the State, which has been provided with a view to carrying on the business in the several districts respectively, and is not adapted to present conditions in the judiciary article, by which the Justices, who are to serve in the Appellate Division, are selected from
those elected to carry on the business of the Courts in the districts over which they are elected.
The present scheme for the Appellate Division to consist of five Justices in each of the four departments to take the place of the General Terms sitting in five departments, was first suggested in the constitutional commission of 1890, over which Judge George E. Danforth presided, and which consisted of thirty-eight members of the Bar, appointed by the Governor under an act of the Legislature to report amendments to the judiciary article. This plan, as originally formulated, provided for the election of Justices of the intermediate Court of review, as members of that Court, with a view to avoiding the selection of Justices of the Supreme Court, and thus hampering the work of the Trial and Special Terms. That commission, however, before the close of its report, agreed upon substantially the plan which was afterward adopted by the convention of 1894, out of which arises most of the difficulties which are criticised in the papers submitted.
In the opinion of your committee, it is not in the manner in which this plan has been carried out that has given just. occasion for criticism, so much as the method adopted, and the difficulty in that respect is radical, and almost incapable of remedy, in view of the fact that the Constitution of 1894 increased the number of the Supreme Court Justices to such an extent that, aside from three of the districts, no addition to the number is necessary or desirable for the purpose of carrying on the business at the Trial and Special Terms and in the Appellate Division.
Out of this situation arises the difficulty that a plan cannot at this time be adopted for the election of Justices of the Appellate Division to replace those now sitting, since that would be to increase very largely the number