House of Delegates. Both of the two leading political parties had formally promised or resolved in their platforms adopted in their conventions last year that such laws should

be passed whereby the people of the whole State might RA

nominate candidates for State officers and for United States Senators, and several bills looking to these ends, were offered in one or the other of the two Houses. Only one of those offered, in my judgment, fulfilled anti-election promises, and it was delayed and smothered in Committee. Another, the so-called State Primary Law, was also delayed in Committee, but finally came up in the House as a Senate amendment to a House bill, only two or three days before the final adjournment, when in "confusion worse confounded," under a previous question-motion, its twenty-three sections were consecutively read in a manner which reminded one of the famous "Uncle Remus" tales of how "Brer Rabbit trotted clipity, clippity, clipity, clippity down the big road" to the discomfiture of the other animals. There is a limit to human intelligence, and I am sure not a single member of the House, not even its alert wonder-working reading clerk, whose performances on this and other like occasions were the admiration of all hearers, could or did understand a sentence of his belated, and since much berated measure, then and there so adopted.

Still another of these bills-the so-called Senatorial Primary Election Law-which your reader and a few other misguided compatriots, had the honor or audacity to unsuccessfully antagonize, after having rested nearly dormant from the early days of the session, was aroused from its slumbers on the second reading file of the House, on the very last day of the Session, and, after failing to secure a twothird vote for suspension of the rules, necessary under the Constitution to pave the way for final passage, was adopted "by hook or crook" by less than two-thirds vote of the members elected by the simple legislative process emergent in the then existing circumstance, and then inaugurated for this primary use of striking out of an innocent-appearing local

measure for Anne Arundel county, then on the third reading file, all after the words, "A Bill," and inserting the alleged amendment, not theretofore engrossed, in lieu thereof. In our beloved nation's affairs much has been said of late in criticism of what some of us are pleased to call "executive usurpation," and among many other appeals has gone forth the rallying cry, "Back to the Constitution." In view of the novel procedure, introduced for the purpose of passing in the Legislature of our beloved State, those measures, which pretend to submit candidacies to popular choice, but which, as I read them, pervert the principle of majority rule, to say nothing of the vicious practices which their provisions will probably encourage and stimulate; in view of the clear language, comprehended in Section 27, of Article 3, of our Constitution, declaring in no mistakable words, "that no bill shall originate in either House during the last 10 days of the session unless two-thirds of the members elected thereto shall so determine by yeas and nays; nor shall any bill become a law until it be read on three different days of the session in each House unless two-thirds of the members elected to the House where such bill is pending shall so determine by yeas and nays; and no bill shall be read a third time until it shall have been actually engrossed for a third reading." I make bold to venture the opinion that the procedure especially devised and used for the passage of this particular Senatorial Primary measure will not stand the test of judicial consideration and determination, and that if so tested, will not be upheld, but will be declared unconstitutional and void. Be its fate what it may I shall be an interested listener, if, as I trust, this much of this paper shall receive the honor of discussion by your members here gathered.

Is there no hope that the evil of procrastination with the kindred evils which offspring from its practice may be overcome? We must trust so. The practice complained of, if continued, will, little by little dispel public confidence, but if condemned and successfully combatted, however, potential, now, can and sooner or later will, be averted.

That, which today appears an impossibility, may, under the impulse of an aroused moral sentiment to support and put it in action, become a reality.

Gentlemen of the Bar Association, I fully appreciate that I have added but little to wholesome suggestions, which have heretofore come from others, who with broader experience, keener visions and more timely utterances, have publicly expressed enlightened views on this topic. In a homely way I have simply pointed out what seems to me to be a dread legislative disease, infectious in any deliberate body, and, this, too, without so much as suggesting any relief or remedy, because I prefer to leave it to you as a body. It is to you, gentlemen of the Bar, that the people look to point out the soft spots not only in existing law, but in the procedure of its enacting. To you, more than to any other class of our citizens, because of your profession, your intelligence, training and influence, is committed the duty of scenting out legislative wrongs, of enthusing the people to aid in preventing, as well as curing the evil by giving a cry of warning that bulwarks of defence may be erected, so that you may ever be regarded as "the beacon of the people's hope and the center of the State's desire."

The President: Although it is the impression of some that the last word of the speaker should not be disturbed by any further comment, under the rules of the Association, I must announce that the paper just read, is now open for discussion and any gentleman who desires to make any remarks may now do so. The Chair sees no one rising to discuss the paper, and will announce that the next order of business is new business.

James C. Rogers, of Hyattsville: On behalf of the Committee on Admissions it gives me great pleasure to recommend for admission as members of this Association, George H. Lamar, of Rockville, Md., and T. Spencer Crane, of Leonardtown.

Charles H. Stanley, of Laurel: I move that the Secretary cast a ballot for the election of those gentlemen as members of the Association.

The motion was carried, and George H. Lamar and T. Spencer Crane were duly elected members of the Association, by the ballot cast for them by the Secretary of the Association.

David Ash, of Baltimore City: I wish to propose an additional by-law to be added to the by-laws of the Association, which is as follows:

That at each annual meeting the Committee on Legal Biography shall report the fact and date of the death of each deceased member of this Association, who shall have died since the last preceding annual meeting; and that supplemental to said report, said committee shall furnish a brief sketch of the public services of said deceased members, respectively, together with such brief remarks relating to them as may seem proper to said committee; and that said supplemental part of said reports shall be filed among the archives of this Association, and published; but not be read at the annual meetings.

B. Harris Camalier, of Leonardtown: I second the motion.

The President: I call attention to the Eighteenth ByLaw, where it states that twenty days' previous notice in writing of the proposed amendment shall be given to the Executive Council, and unless that notice has been given, I do not think that the matter is now in order.

Mr. Ash: Under those circumstances I will withdraw my amendment.

Conway W. Sams, of Baltimore City: It may not be quite in order at this time, but in referring to the point of order on which the President has just ruled, I would like te call the attention of the Association to that part of the Constitution which relates to amendments to the Constitution, which says that the Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting on the recommendation of the Execu

tive Council by a vote of a majority or without such recommendation by a two-thirds vote. It seems that we can amend our Constitution much more easily than the by-laws. I think the purpose of Mr. Ash could be accomplished by a simple resolution.

The President: I think we ought to stick close to the constitution.

Is there any further new business to be brought to the attention of the Association. The Chair hears none and will announce that the next order of business is the discussion of reports of committees. The first report to be discussed is the report of the Committee on Laws, which was presented yesterday and which I now lay before the Association.

Conway W. Sams, of Baltimore City: If you will permit me, I will state I have a resolution to offer here in reference to the report of the committee in certain matters, and if I am permitted to offer the resolution now, it may result in simplifying matters.

The Committee on Laws desires to offer this resolution:

Resolved, By this Association, that in accordance with the report of the Committee on Laws.

FIRST: The Criminal Law Revision Commission, recently appointed by the Governor of this State, be requested to submit its report to this Association for its consideration at the annual meeting in the year 1909, 30 days before that annual meeting.

SECOND: That this Association strongly condemns the practice of making laws take effect from the date of passage, unless there is some urgent necessity for the immediate taking effect of a particular act.

THIRD: That the incoming Committee on Laws be instructed to prepare a report to be presented to the next annual meeting, giving the number of constitutional amendments, with the result of their submission, which have been