Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/90

 Massachusetts Bar Association meeting appointed a committee to con fer with the judges of the Superior Court upon a revision of the rules of court, and at the request of the com mittee on uniform procedure of the American Bar Associat on a committee to assist in its work. "The committee on legislation did very valuable work last winter in ex amining before the time for hearing all laws proposed. Special attention was given to the proposed amendments to the workmen's compensation act. "The very important and unpleasant duties of the committee on grievances have been discharged with fidelity." President Clifford's address was fol lowed by presentation of the reports of the committees on legislation, judicial appointments, legal education and mem bership and grievances. The report of the committee on grievances included all charges of misconduct and such matters which were not made public. A general discussion followed on the best means to prevent any lessening of the general integrity of the bar. The report of the committee on legis

79

lation dealt with efforts to defeat legis lation or constitutional amendments proposing to establish an elective judi ciary or the recall of the judiciary, or any change in the method of procedure against a lawyer for misconduct. All bills contemplating such innovations op posed by the association were reported to have failed. The following officers were elected: President, John C. Hammond; vicepresidents, William H. Brooks, James F. Cotter, Samuel K. Hamilton, William H. Niles, Herbert Parker, Joseph B. Warner; secretary, James A. Lowell; treasurer, Charles E. Ware; executive committee, Hollis R. Bailey, Henry H. Baker, Charles Neal Barney, Paul R. Blackmur, Charles E. Burke, James B. Carroll, William A. Davenport, David A. Ellis, Lee M. Friedman, Robert 0. Harris, Gardner K. Hudson, Henry F. Hurlburt, James F. Jackson, Melvin M. Johnson, Thomas J. Kenny, Charles S. Lilley, John W. Mason, Oliver Prescott, George S. Taft, Ezra R. Thayer and John J. Winn.

English Divorce Reform By E. Deforest Leach WHILE the recommendations of the English Royal Divorce Commis sion are little short of revolutionary in their nature, the most important fea ture of the report does not consist in the fact that it favors increasing the grounds from one to six and in other ways facilitating the granting of divorces. It is really of very little importance, in considering the divorce question as a whole, whether this or that condition

or act shall be recognized as a ground for divorce. The important thing for us as Americans to realize, if we will, is that England, after an experience of more than half a century with the strictest divorce law in existence, carefully ad ministered, finds the same to be wholly unsuited to modern social conditions. Divorce reform in England means just the opposite to what it does in this country. Here it means more difficult