Rochester: Our water supply has been certified as the purest in the State.

Frederic W. Hinrichs, of New York:

If

Mr. President, before the motion is put I should like to say a word on behalf of our friend, Mr. Wadhams. we were to abolish Mr. Wadhams, I ask you, gentlemen, what would become of the Bar Association of the State of New York? His suggestion ordinarily ought to receive great weight. If we were to abolish the local members of the Bar of Buffalo, however much I esteem. them, nevertheless the State Association would go on, I believe; but if we were to lose Mr. Wadhams the State Association would go on, but it would go on on crutches for a long time until we found a man that had as admirable an equipment for his place. For two years we have been holding this convention in other cities than Albany. Mr. Wadhams says let us have the next one in Albany and after that let us have the next one in Rochester. It seems to me that suggestion should receive more weight than the suggestion from our friends of the city of Rochester.

The Secretary:

Let me call the attention of some of the new members to another provision of the by-laws, and that is, that unless a man has been a member for six months he cannot vote. The provision is as follows: "No person shall be entitled to vote at any meeting of the Association until he has been a member for at least six months preceding the said meeting." Now, I will put those gentlemen who have recently been elected, and there were seventy-four of them, I put them on their honor that they should not

stand up. I think this provision should be adhered to strictly. I am not speaking for Albany because it is my home town. I am speaking for the members of the Association. I am speaking for the men in New York City, in central New York, for the men that would come to Albany that would not go to Rochester. Let us hold the meeting next year in Albany and the year following go to Rochester.

John Brooks Leavitt, of New York:

Mr. Chairman, I say for one that we people of New York are too apt to stay there. It does us no good to stay there, and in behalf of the men in New York I hope you will make us come to Rochester.

Ira G. Darrin, of Long Island City:

Mr. Chairman, I had the experience of going to Albany two years ago, and although I had provided for hotel accommodations before I arrived there I found myself in the position of being obliged either to go to Troy to get a hotel or stay in a bath house. I chose the latter.

Henry G. Danforth, of Rochester:

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of this Association in this matter. It never occurred to me it was going to take up so much time. Since Mr. Wadhams is so careful about the good treatment of the members of the Association, and so regardless of the welfare of Albany in this matter, it seems to me I should also add a few words in favor of the members of the Association at large. All of you who have attended meetings at Albany know, as the last speaker has mentioned, it is necessary to sleep either in Troy or in a bath house. I have

had that same experience myself and I have been to many meetings of the Bar Association in past years. They are dependent practically on one hotel in Albany. The annual meeting is at a time when the Legislature is in session. Rochester, while it is a small city, is now blessed with four large hotels, all of which are screaming for persons to occupy their rooms and beds, and they are all firstclass hotels. We have fine accommodations in every way; . meeting rooms, rooms for dinner, and we can assure the members of a good dinner and good treatment. It seems to me if we are going to get the meeting in Rochester and keep alive this feeling that it is to be an Association for the whole State, it is a good thing to go to Rochester next year, although I do not care to be too unduly insistent on the merits of my own town. As to Mr. Wadhams and our personal consideration for him, I think no one surpasses me in my respect for him. No one can surpass me in my admiration for his capacity and the admirable manner in which he fills the position and takes care of the interests of all the members of this Association; but I feel that Mr. Wadhams could pack his books in a trunk and ship it by train to Rochester, and there do his business as he has here apparently without any trouble at all.

The Secretary:

Mr. Chairman, personally I would just as soon meet in Rochester. I would be glad to go there. I am only thinking of the benefit to the Association. I may be all wrong about it. Omit all thought of Albany as my home town; don't let that, or my convenience, or personal feelings, enter into your decision.

The Chairman:

All those in favor of the next annual meeting being

held in Albany, will rise.

The motion was lost.

The Chairman:

The question now arises on Mr. Danforth's motion that the next annual meeting of the Association be held in Rochester.

The motion was duly carried.

The Chairman:

The next business in order is the report of the Committee on Medical Expert Testimony. As I am one of the members of that committee, I do not think it would look very well for me to preside, as questions might arise that would call for my ruling. I would not like any member of this Association to think that my rulings. perhaps were in favor of one party or the other, so I will ask Mr. Justice McLennan to take the chair during the discussion on the report of the Committee on Medical Expert Testimony.

Hon. Peter B. McLennan in the chair.

The Chairman:

Gentlemen of the Association, the next order of business is the presentation of the report of the Committee on Expert Testimony.

A. T. Clearwater, of Kingston:

Mr. Chairman, owing to the fact that the report of this committee has not been printed, perhaps I should preface

the report itself with a brief explanation. At the last meeting of the Association, in the city of New York, the attention of the then President, Mr. Choate, was called to the fact that medical expert testimony, particularly in the First District, had fallen into disrepute. Mr. Choate asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the Association, which I did, and a committee was appointed by Mr. Stetson, the now President, to consider the regulation of the introduction of medical expert testimony and to report at this meeting of the Association. That committee consisted of Judge Davy, Mr. Moot, General George M. Diven, Mr. Waters, Senator Brackett, Judge Morschauser, Mr. Dykman, Austen G. Fox, and myself. The first thing we did was to communicate with the Attorneys-General of all the States for the purpose of ascertaining in which of them there was any statutory regulation upon this subject; replies have been received from forty States. There is a statute in Michigan, a copy of which is appended to our report, and which we regard as impracticable. There is a statute in Rhode Island, which also is appended, but which would not be acceptable in this State. A bill has been prepared by Chief Justice Emery, of the State of Maine, for presentation to the Legislature of that State, which contains excellent provisions. In addition to communicating with the Attorneys-General of the States, we familiarized ourselves with the regulation of the introduction of medical expert testimony in Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Switzerland. The countries of continental Europe, as you know, proceed under the methods of the civil law and the introduction of medical expert testimony is regulated by statute. They have no such regulation in England. Also we invited the co-operation of