its sections for the year 1924 should be held at some convenient point on or near the Atlantic Seaboard (such as Atlantic City, Philadelphia or New York), immediately prior to the sailing of the ship which can be chartered if the committee so desires, to take our entire party abroad. For this purpose the committee has interviewed the leading steamship lines and is prepared to submit details if desired.

It is contemplated that the return trip should be arranged so that the members will have a selection of three or four steamships sailing at weekly intervals. If this plan is not pursued, the members can make their own reservations for the return trip when and as they please.

That report having been laid before your Executive Committee, they approved and authorized me to submit to this gathering the following resolution :

Resolved, (1) That the members of the American Bar Association greatly appreciate the action of their English brethren in extending to the Association so cordial an invitation to meet in London in 1924. They cordially reciprocate the fraternal sentiment evidenced by this invitation, and they direct the President of the Association to convey to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society their grateful acknowledgment of this courtesy.

(2) That while in the opinion of the Association it is not practicable or expedient to hold the regular meeting of 1924 for the despatch of business beyond the territorial confines of the United States, the Association, nevertheless, approves of the holding of a special meeting in London, in accordance with the invitation received, following the regular annual meeting.

(3) That the Executive Committee be authorized and instructed to take appropriate action in accordance with this resolution.

I move the adoption of that resolution.

The question was put and the resolution was unanimously adopted.

Mr. Davis thereupon resumed the chair.

The President:

We will return to the regular order of business. It is the report of the Committee on Classification and Re-statement of Law, Thomas I. Parkinson, Chairman.

Committee on Classification and Restatement of Law:

Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York:

The whole idea of our report is that the work of restatement and reclassification of the law, as desirable as it is, is something that neither this Association nor one of its committees ought to

undertake. It is a work which we ought to encourage, an undertaking we ought to inspire, one that this Association and its committee has, over the course of many years, inspired and encouraged, I think I am fair to say, to the point of what has now been done by the American Law Institute; and that having been accomplished, it is a work which this Association ought to cooperate in.

That idea alone I want to emphasize in presenting our report. You will note that it is in accordance with what the director of the Institute has said. But I want to emphasize to you, and to those who have this Institute in charge, that no matter how brilliant and able and how hard-working may be the men whom they select to do this important work, it will never be a success unless it has had the intelligent cooperation, criticism and suggestion of the great body of the Bench and Bar. My suggestion to them is that long before they determine the final form of their restatement they get their tentative material into such form as will enable the body of this Association to give them intelligent suggestion and criticism.

By that I mean that they shall not let the restatement get to the point of the reporter's final idea of what it should be before it is submitted to us for criticism and suggestion, that they should get their tentative restatement in such form that it will present the underlying theory which has guided the statement published, and, to some extent, at least, the alternatives which have been rejected by those who have determined what should constitute the restatement. Then we will give them intelligent, constructive criticism and suggestion, and without it I do not believe they can make their restatement the success that it ought to be. Now, with that I have nothing to report for the committee except this resolution, the adoption of which I move:

Resolved, That the report of the Special Committee on Classification and Restatement of the Law be received and filed; that this Association renews its belief in the desirability and practicability of a reclassification and restatement of our law; and that this committee be continued to cooperate with the American Law Institute or any other body having for its purpose the preparation of such a classification and restatement.

The resolution was unanimously adopted.

The President:

The next step is the report of the Committee on Admiralty and Maritime Law, Charles C. Burlingham, Chairman.

Committee on Admiralty and Maritime Law:

Charles C. Burlingham, of New York:

This is a subject which is not of very general interest usually, but we think if you will be so good as to read our report this year you will find something of real importance to all lawyers who have to do with claims against the United States Government.

Since our last meeting two conferences have been held in Europe, one in London of the voluntary association called the International Maritime Committee, and one in Brussels, a diplomatic conference in which the United States was represented by Judge Charles M. Hough, of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mr. Norman B. Beecher, of counsel for the Shipping Board. At both they considered what are known as The Hague Rules relating to bills of lading for carriage by sea.

Twenty-four nations were represented in the conference at Brussels, and those 24 nations signed The Hague Rules and submitted them to their respective governments for approval. They have been printed in the "American Maritime Cases," which is a new report of admiralty decisions published under the auspices of the Maritime Law Association of the United States.

They also considered some other matters, which I will not refer to, but there was brought up at both conferences a subject which I consider of vital importance. As you all know, it is impossible to sue the United States in tort without a special act of Congress. On March 9, 1920, a statute was passed, which provided that suit might be brought against the United States in case of torts committed by government vessels provided they were employed as merchant vessels. The admiralty bar and shippers and ship owners all thought that the right should be given to the private owners of ships to proceed against the United States government whether the ship which did the damage was operated as a merchant vessel or was on the public business of the sovereign state. It has been a matter of reproach to this country for many years that the maxim that the King can do no wrong should have

prevailed here when it has been abandoned in other countries. I noticed the other day that at Williamstown, Prof. Paul Vinogradoff, of Oxford, expressed the greatest surprise, and, if I may say so, contempt, for the idea that the state should not be responsible to its citizens for its acts, and I remember a few years ago when Prof. Redlich, of Vienna, a distinguished jurist, was here, it was impossible for him to believe, until I convinced him, that in case a government-owned ship, a ship of war, had a collision, recovery could not be had. In England, where they usually do things in rather a circumlocutory way, the commander of the vessel is sued, not the King, of course, but the commander of the vessel. The government appears and tries the case, through the attorney-general or solicitor-general, and if a judgment is rendered pays it causa honoris. I could give you many instances of the prompt way in which the matter is dealt with.

A bill was introduced two or three sessions ago, which was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee of the House, permitting suits against the United States in case of collision, but that bill failed to pass. Now, the conference in Brussels has gone far beyond that bill and has adopted a set of resolutions, or statements called bases, for a draft of an international convention which makes government vessels actually subject to process provided only that where the vessel involved is a war vessel suit may be brought only in the country of the sovereign state which is the owner of the vessel.

The Maritime Association of the United States has prepared a short bill amending the act of March 9, 1920, by striking out the words "merchant vessel," so that in the case of any government vessel, whether engaged in commerce, as the shipping board vessels are, or in the business of the sovereign state, the government shall be responsible-not in rem, however, and we have carefully provided that they should be immune from process. I will read the brief section:

In view of the provision herein made for suits in admiralty against the United States, no vessel owned or operated by or for the United States, and no cargo owned by the United States, shall be subject to arrest or seizure by judicial process in the United States or its possessions, nor shall the United States be required to give any bond or admiralty stipulation in any proceedings hereunder.

At the next meeting of the International Diplomatic Conference, which will probably be called in two or three years, this

matter will come up as an international question, to be submitted, of course, to the respective governments. Meanwhile it is important that this Association should back the bill prepared by the Maritime Law Association, which permits, under very carefully drawn safeguards, proceedings against the United States much as in the case of contract proceedings can now be taken under the Tucker Act and the other act that supplemented it. Thus in cases of tort-I confess we have confined this bill to maritime torts-we shall relieve ourselves from the reproach to which I have referred. I therefore move that the report be adopted.

The motion was carried.

R. A. McDowell, of Kentucky, offered the following resolution, which was referred to the Executive Committee:

WHEREAS, The American Bar Association has adopted a code of ethics for guidance of members of the Bar, and it is important that this code should be displayed as conveniently and publicly as possible and not merely published in pamphlet and book form, therefore,

Be it resolved, That the Executive Committee, or such other committee to which the Executive Committee may refer the matter, is hereby authorized and directed to have the code of ethics printed in proper form for framing, have a sufficient number of copies properly framed, and place a copy thereof in every federal court in the United States and its possessions, with the request that it be hung in a conspicuous place therein.

The President:

The Committee on Noteworthy Changes in Statute Law, Joseph P. Chamberlain, Chairman.

Committee on Noteworthy Changes in Statute Law:

John B. Sanborn, of Minnesota:

In the absence of the Chairman, I will make the report for the committee. We have made a résumé of federal legislation. The committee has not had time to analyze all the state statutes. It has a very practical reason for knowing the appalling number of bills that have passed through the legislatures of the states, which fact has been commented upon by President Davis, by Mr. Justice Butler, and by Governor Whitman. The committee has sought to examine into ways in which this grist might be reduced. It has suggested that there are three classes of bills that might