association for the last five years unless it happened to be in their home town. Members that would be of mighty value in the deliberations of this body are not here.

You call a meeting of the kind contemplated by this resolution and you will find a different representation. I will allude to the meeting at Bismarck. I venture to say that every lawyer that has taken a prominent part in politics in North Dakota was there and the so-called 'farce,' the result of that meeting, was because of the action and attitude taken by the political members of the bar, and they manipulated the thing to their satisfaction by spreading the but ter so thin that it wasn't the compliment it might have been.

Just as sure as we resolve ourselves into an association for the nomination of members of the supreme court these men who are prominent in political affairs will be on deck armed with all the experience of years in political affrays and the young men who have to work and have as good a right as anybody else will not feel like taking the journey of that distance and put in the time to be led by the stronger men and politicians among the members of the bar.

This association has done good work in discussing and acting upon matters of vital importance to the people of the state at large as distinguished from any measures for the benefit of the bar itself. I dread to consider the possibilities of this association entering upon a policy of dictating in any measure, as an association, who shall be the candidates for judicial offices.

Mr. Wright: I assure you, gentlemen, I shall speak but a few minutes to this amendment. Mr. Greene, and Judge Palda and Mr. Besancon in what they have said have but echoed what was said by myself and others years ago when this policy was first under consideration. What I want to do today is to either pursue the policy we have adopted or else by the action of this association revoke it, and I give notice at this time that if this amendment is voted down and if the resolution under consideration in the report of the committee is sricken out, I shall offer before this convention adjourns a resolution to revoke the action of this body in 1906 on this subject.

My brother Greene suggests that we have a bench here that is satisfactory. What assurances have we that any one of the three judges whose terms expire next year will be a candidate for re-election? There have been allusions upon this floor to the action of the last legislative assembly on the subject of a non-partisan judiciary. I suggest the possibility of the judges sitting upon the supreme bench being called upon to say whether or not that very act of our legislature is not in contravention of the guaranteed right, of our fundamental law assuring to the citizen the right of petition and assembly, the right as declared by Judge Spalding in his dissenting opinion in the Mountraille case last winter, the right of the citizens to organize themselves as bodies and as bodies to petition and to assemble in conventions to nominate candidates for office.

I suggest that if this law is in contravention of that portion of the constitution they will have to say that the legislature of this state cannot prohibit a body of men or political party from nominating candidaes for the supreme court bench, any more than they can prohibit the nomination of a candidate for governor or congressman.

Who will call upon them to do this? Who called upon them to pass upon the senatorial question last year? Who will say that someone will not raise the question either for ulterior motives to destroy the effect of that legislative action or some lawyer who may himself desire to be a candidate of his own party for the position. And who will say that it is not his legal and ethical right? Suppose that court is called upon to decide upon that question and says it is unconstitutional. Two of those judges who Mr. Green says are satisfactory and who, I believe, are satisfactory, belong to the minority party of this state. Then their candidacy will be relegated to the action of the minority party.

Mr. Combs: Will you allow me to ask you a question?

Mr. Wright: Yes, sir.

Mr. Combs: Don't you think the complexion of the supreme. court and the present competency of that body is due to the active interest and effort of the bar association of this state?

Mr. Wright: I express no opinion on that subject, I do not consider this the proper time to ask or to answer that question. I simply say here that these gentlemen have talked beside the question. I repeat what the president has said, what Mr. Winterer has said, what others have suggested, that the declared and established policy of this association exists now and is embodied in the resolution but it is for this body to prescribe the means and methods of carrying it into effect, just as Judge Knauf's amendment proposes. If we do not wish to do this let us be consistent and revoke the 1906 resolution and say that is not the policy of this association.

Mr. Lewis: Whether or not the resolution as proposed by the committee is wise is one proposition. I understand the question now is on the proposed amendment. Upon that I believe it goes at this time much too far and should be rejected. The general proposition of the lawyers and bar associations of the state or nation having. a prominent part in the selection of the judiciary I believe is in accordance with modern scientific views and is absolutely the proper thing. But the method is a very different proposition. (Mr. Lewis further discusses the subject elaborating his view that the amendment goes too far.)

Mr. Leverson: I want to state my position. I am in favor of the report of the committee but I think the amendment goes too far as the last speaker has said. In the first place, anything we pass here in the line of procedure could be overruled and changed by the meeting in March or April.

The President: That will be a special meeting

Mr. Leverson: I believe we should leave that matter free so that the members at that meeting can take such action as they see fit. The amendment seeks to tie their hands and I believe it goes too far. I am in favor of the report of the committee but I do not believe the amendment should be adopted.

(Cries of 'Question!' 'Question!')

The President: I believe remarks are in order and this is the time for the discussion.

Judge Goss: I did not come here to discuss this or any other question but before this matter is closed by vote one way or the other and before the association declares its policy on this question, I wish to say a few words on the subject. As I said it is purely and simply a question of policy and nothing else. Before this committee declares its policy I would like at least to endorse the sentiments that I have heard here in opposition both to the amendment and to the original motion.

In the history of this association, and I believe the records will bear me out in my statemnt, this is at least the third time this matter of policy has been before the association, and always heretofore this question of policy has come before the association either at some special meeting or else right in the middle of some political campaign where the action of this association would be most political and would have the most political effect.

It seems to me, Mr. President and gentlemen, that this fact and the past history of this association in that particular should shed some light upon our considerations as to whether or not we care to adopt this policy. This motion and amendment brings before you for your adoption the very thing that twice before has gone into the history of this association. During a political campaign this association is to meet and inject itself into politics. The legislature has tried to get away from the proposition of the judiciary being mixed up in politics. We all of us half our lifetime have heard this doctrine advocated. We have heard the same thing advocated as to the schools, but both these things will always be in politics and to a certain extent I believe it is right they should be.

I can see no reason why we should depart from the theory of our government in all other particulars on the question of the judiciary or the schools. This is merely a matter for the great American people and for the people of your state to take care of. They have taken care of it well in the past, generally speaking, and I think they will in the future.

I agree with brother Greene when he says that no emergency exists. For my part I can see no reason for the adoption of either the amendment or the original motion. You all know when this resolution two or three years ago was adopted. You know its effect on the state, or its non-effect, which ever you might call it. You know

how the people regarded it. I think as I said before it would be something for this convention or this assembly to consider carefully before they vote to have a meeting two months before the next political campaign is over and inject some more politics into the campaign at that time.

Mr. Blood: It seems to me that the association is a little hasty. We should not forget that there are quite a number of members of the association that have had some difficulty in reaching here. I for one was not able to reach here until No. 3 today. I know of several others who have not been able to reach the place of meeting until after the discussion on this amendment arose and for my own benefit and for the benefit of those who have not heard the amendment read I would ask that it be read so that we might know what this discussion is about.

(Mr. Thomas is asked to read the resolution. He reads the original resolution contained in the committee's report, and says:)

Mr. Thomas: That is the original. Then Judge Knauf has moved to amend this by striking this out and substituting a resolution of his own, practically carrying out the same thought but suggesting how it should be done.

(Mr. Thomas reads Judge Knauf's amendment.)

The President: Any further remarks on this motion?

Mr. Johnson: I don't know whether I have any right to speak here or not, I don't know whether I am a member.

The President: I think your application was accepted at noon. Mr. Johnson: Then I may speak without the unanimous consent. I think we are entering upon very dangerous ground. If this association should place in nomination three of the best men, I am speaking of three because that is the number that has been mentioned here, among the bar of this state for those positions, I am afraid if the resolutions which have been presented here should be sent out over the state the politicians of the state would say, 'Now you can see that the attorneys of this state do not want to have the primary election, and place certain men of their own for the positions.

I am afraid these men might suffer by being placed in nomination in such a way. I believe, my friends, we could do great things to elect the judges of the supreme bench if we go at it in a common sense way, if we would wait until the men who want to be candidates for those offices had declared themselves and then if the president of this association should see fit to call a meeting and the members would talk over whom of those men they would support for the nomination, but not place anyone in nomination themselves.

I believe if they should go ahead before any candidates have declared themselves they would mar the chances of any candidates they would put up for election. I believe the politicians of this state would go out among the common people, and I can say what their attitude is for I am one of the common people, and tell them that the

attorneys in their meeting down at Bismarck or wherever they meet were controlled by corporation men and that they want such and such a man elected, and ask them whether they will stand for it.

That is going to be the result, no matter what argument you may put up against it. This will take with the farmers; whether it is true or not will make no difference as long as it serves its purpose. I have found that out and I want to say it is a dangerous proposition, not so much for its effect upon this association but I believe it will injure the chances of the election of the best man for the bench. I believe we should let it go until they have declared themselves. Then if the president of this association thinks that some action should be taken by the association in supporting any candidates who had declared themselves then we cannot be charged with bringing them out. That is the only object I have in making these few remarks.

Mr. Carroll: In illustration of what Mr. Johnson has just saidjust a few days ago I was talking with a client-I really had a client and he wanted to know about the personality of a certain attorney in town. I told him that the man was absolutely responsible and I went out, of my way to tell him that almost without exception he could go to the office of any attorney and get absolutely fair treatment. I gave the bar as a whole considerable of a send-off, being quite proud at having recently broken in.

And now I will tell you what he said. He said: 'Haw, haw.' He thought I was telling him a joke. You probably all have had similar experiences, not perhaps as bad as that, but as Mr. Johnson has said the average layman does not understand why an attorney can get up before a jury and advocate the cause of his client and that cause perhaps be antagonistic to the attorney's own interest. The farmer man cannot understand it, cannot get it through his head. He says the attorney is crooked, he has been bought with his fees. We know better, but that is the way they feel about it, and that is the trouble with any kind of proposition like this. If the attorneys go to recommending any person for the people to vote for, I know that the people are going to look askanse upon such an endorsement. (Cries of 'Question!' 'Question!')

Mr. Lambert: I move that both the motion and the amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. Shaw: I rise to a point of order.

The President: I understand the motion to be on the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Knauf.

A standing vote is taken. Result: Nine in favor and 31 opposed. The President: Now, gentlemen, as I understand it, the question is on the adoption of the report of the executive committee as a whole including this section.

Mr. Palda: I move you that this body strike from the report of the executive committee that portion of the report referring to the