however, if respect for the law on the part of those encountering its unforgiving pursuit is any greater abroad than it is in the United States. Certainly, in those matters which make for the rights of the accused, for the separation of juvenile offenders from veteran criminals and in the management and equipment of penal institutions, there is much to be said in favor of the more considerate and humanitarian features of American jurisprudence.

Speaking for myself alone, I have always felt that underlying all temptations to flout the law on the part of the weak, the unfortunate, the ignorant and even the vicious is a feeling that in some way the individual, thus pulled by abnormal instincts, is already outside the pale of organized society; that the courts are not for him; that the institutions of the country are not of his making or for his protection; and that the elaborate machinery set up for the composition of private and public disputes is peculiarly for the benefit of those who can afford the luxury of a lawsuit. I do not believe that we as American lawyers could be about any task that would so increase general respect for the law as to make clear to all the men and women of the land that justice is not too expensive for the poor. No meritorious case, whether civil or criminal, that is cognizable in the courts of this country, ought to be denied the services of an able, courageous and loyal advocate, and no person, however humble, ought to be able to say in any American community that his cause, civil or criminal, is beyond his means to adequately present. The great doctors establish free clinics. Why cannot the ablest lawyers establish free service?

When the members of the American Bar, supported by their national association, and as officers of the local courts, let it be known that no worthy case need go without a trained advocate, simply because of the lack of means to employ one, the poor and needy who are in trouble will feel that the administration of justice is a public concern, and that they are invoking within their rights a sort of official intervention to adjust their grievances. Of course the states can do much, and have, in eliminating costs in indigent cases; and legal aid societies are doing splendid work in this direction which no one would want to discourage or

obstruct. Yet such means do have the appearance of public or private charity, and naturally the best men are rarely available.

Some one may say that busy lawyers will be imposed upon by cranks and impostors if they engage in such an altruistic enterprise. But the busy lawyer is generally one who can most quickly determine the merits of a case and protect himself from imposition. I was reading the other day an article on Abraham Lincoln's earnings at the Bar, and one of the chief things that struck me was the number of cases he took for nothing. Nor do I believe there is any lawyer within my hearing at this moment who has not felt a finer thrill of satisfaction, and the sense of a larger compensation, in the winning,of some case for which he charged no fee because the injured party was unable to pay it, than he has ever experienced in the reward that comes from serving what some one has defined as the ideal client-the man who is rich and scared.

I should like to see in every American community, where members of this Association reside, a small committee of the local bar, preferably composed of its leaders, who will publicly announce that they are ready to hear and advocate or defend in the courts, if necessary, any meritorious case where the person aggrieved is unable to employ counsel. I believe that a stirring response of approbation would follow in the country at large, if the news could penetrate into all the dark places where misery and envy hide, and where grievances against law and order are nourished by the mischief makers, that the courts belong to the people and that justice is free.

Of course it is a fine thing of itself to serve the cause that needs assistance" against "the wrong that needs resistance" without money and without price. But I am putting these considerations above any question of sentiment. I believe the step here proposed, taken in the most public way possible, would contribute more than any other conceivable factor in popularizing respect for the law and in promoting everywhere, within the comprehension of the masses of our citizens, a greater confidence in the noble profession to which we belong. When there is a universal respect for the law, the mere fear of it becomes less important.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

SECTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY LAW

The sixth annual meeting of the Section was held at the Hotel Radisson, Minneapolis, Minn., August 27-28, 1923. John B. Sanborn, of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Section, presided at these sessions. In the absence of E. A. Armstrong, of New Jersey, Secretary of the Section, E. A. Prendergast, of Minnesota, acted as Secretary pro tem."

John B. Sanborn delivered the annual address of the Chairman of the Section.

(The Address follows these minutes, page 638.)

After a general discussion of the address, Carl D. Jackson, of New York, moved the appointment of a committee of five to consider the suggestion in the address in the light of the discussion, and to report at a subsequent session as to concrete problems which the Section ought to consider and make recommendations upon. The Chairman appointed as such committee, Carl D. Jackson, of New York; Chester I. Long, of Kansas; F. W. Putnam, of Minnesota; William L. Ransom, of New York; and Nathaniel T. Guernsey, of New York.

The Secretary pro tem. then presented the report of the Secretary.

The second session of the Section was held during the forenoon of August 28. Leslie Craven, of Illinois, counsel for the western group of the President's Committee on Railway Valuation, read a paper on the subject "Public Service Company Valuation; a Statement of the Problem."

(The Address follows these minutes, page 644.)

The Chairman asked F. W. Putnam, of Minnesota, to open the discussion of Mr. Craven's paper. The discussion was continued by William L. Ransom, of New York; Nathaniel T. Guernsey, of New York; and W. N. Steele, of Wisconsin. Mr. Craven then

closed the discussion with a brief reply to some of the criticisms made upon his address.

The Committee on Nominations presented a report which was adopted, and the following officers were elected: Chester I. Long, Kansas, Chairman; F. W. Putnam, Minnesota, Vice-Chairman; Edward A. Armstrong, New Jersey, Secretary; John Randolph Tucker, Virginia, Treasurer. Council: John B. Sanborn, Wisconsin; Carl D. Jackson, New York; William T. Chamberlain, Iowa; Nathaniel T. Guernsey, New York; J. M. Anderson, Tennessee; Oscar Mitchell, Minnesota; Bradley W. Palmer, Massachusetts; and J. A. C. Kennedy, Nebraska.

The third session of the meeting was held on the evening of August 28. Nathaniel T. Guernsey, of New York, read a paper upon the same subject which he discussed at the 1922 meeting of the Section, " Rate-Making Powers under Commission Laws." (The Address follows these minutes, page 673.)

The paper was discussed by J. W. Dana, of Missouri; Carl D. Jackson, of New York; Oscar Mitchell, of Minnesota; L. P. Miles, of Tennessee; David A. Frank, of Texas; and J. M. Anderson, of Tennessee.

The Special Committee to recommend future action by the Section, reported the following resolutions:

First: That the Council of the American Bar Association of Public Utility Law is hereby authorized and requested by the Section of Public Utility Law to take such action from time to time during each year as it may deem advisable for the furtherance of such measures and policies respecting the law of public utility regulation as may have been approved by the Association, or by this Section; such action to be at all times consistent with the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association, and further subject to the approval of the Executive Committee of the Association in any case where it may be necessary, or is deemed advisable by the Council.

Second: That the Council is hereby authorized and requested to make constructive studies and formulate recommendations concerning the law of public utilities regulation and to appoint special committees, or subcommittees from the members of the Section, or from members of the Council for that purpose; such studies and recommendations to be submitted to the Section for its approval before being made public, and subsequent procedure thereon to be in accordance with the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. In making such studies and recommendations the Council and such committees are authorized to confer and co-operate with other organizations undertaking similar public service.

Third: The program for the meeting of the Section shall be prepared by the Chairman and Secretary of the Section in conjunction with and subject to approval by the Council.

Fourth: The Council shall meet at a time and place announced by the Chairman during the week of its election, and is requested to hold such meetings from time to time during the year as it may deem advisable. Such meetings to be held at the call of the Chairman, or upon the written request of four members of the Council.

These resolutions were unanimously adopted and after a few remarks by the new Chairman, Chester I. Long, of Kansas, the Section adjourned.