tration of the public school systems in the several cities of the state as required or provided by article nine of the constitution."

How can general or special laws or charters be repealed or amended" in accordance with" the article? This is indeed a most difficult question. The repeal must accord with Section one which declares the duty of the Legislature to provide for the organization of cities. If a law relates to the "property. affairs or government" of one city can it be repealed save by a state law passed in accordance with Section two which in terms and in effect must relate to every city? The bulk of the Greater New York Charter relates to its "property, affairs or government" and seems beyond repeal save by emergency message and a two-thirds vote.

Will not the legislature act in relation to the property, affairs or government of a city if it authorize a city to repeal existing law in relation thereto?

Since a city ordinance under Section three must be consistent with every State law the repeal there must be by a general State law, for surely a city law is not consistent with a State law if it repeal or amend that law.

Under Section four special State laws may repeal other laws which do not relate to property, affairs or government. Here, again, the Courts must draw the line between the two classes of laws and a repealing act may lie in the twilight zone. The line will not be straight and from time to time will have new bends as the Courts meet new exigencies in State and City affairs.

Under Section five a repeal or amendment may be enacted by a general State law but if it be possible to escape the limitations of Section two and be a general law there must be a classification. Repeal or amendment by general law seems difficult under Section five. Repeal of a charter or other law by a city ordinance cannot, as I believe, be authorized under this section.

The Home Rule Amendment is ungenerous and undoubtedly involved. Home Rule has not worked well in all States nor in all cities of any one State. It is a great experiment in New

York. It was wise, I think, to be ungenerous; to give limited power; to take one short step and observe the result before taking a second; to test the capacity of the cities of New York for a modicum of self-government, before giving a fuller measure. It is possible that the cities will rise to the full measure of their opportunity and use wisely the few additional powers that may be given to them. The principle of Home Rule seems to be established and the extent of a further grant may well be left to experience and to the wisdom of the Legislature and the People.

There are, beyond question, great fissures in the Home Rule Amendment, great gaps, within which the judgment of the legislature and of the courts will move more or less untrammelled. Mr. Justice Holmes has summed up the duty of the Courts in these words :8

"I recognize without hesitation that judges must and do legislate, but they do so only interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motion."

The judges in New York, filling the great gaps in the Home Rule Amendment, must abandon molecules and deal with masses. They will be compelled to deal boldly, by the method of free decision, following the processes of the great judges in England and America, who develop the common law. The judges of late have not failed in boldness in dealing with constitutional limitations and I fear not they will fail to meet the problems of the amendment. It is our duty to aid the Commis sion and they ask our aid; to offer assistance to the Legislature and they will need it and fully prepare to give our final aid to the Courts in the vexed questions certain to come to them.

Gentlemen of the Association, if I have excited your attention to the amendment and if you will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest it and offer to the Governor, his Commission and to the Legislature the results of your consideration, I will indeed have achieved the purpose of this address. The subject is great and filled with possibilities for good or ill. It is worthy of great thoughts.

So. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205.

Mr. Putnam:

Mr. President.

The President:

Judge Putnam.

Mr. Putnam:

I move, sir, this subject of the Home Rule Amendment be referred to a special committee to be appointed by the chair, and, as it is desirable that all parts of the State be represented I suggest that the number on that committee be as large as

seven.

(The motion was seconded).

The Chair:

It is moved and seconded that a committee to consider this Home Rule question and amendment, a committee of seven be appointed by the Chair which shall be representative of all parts of the State.

Is there any discussion? Are you ready for the question? The question is upon the adoption of this motion of Judge Putnam. As many as are in favor of the motion will say Aye; contrary minded, No. The motion prevails.

Gentlemen, will you please rise while the report of the Committee on Legal Biography, the Necrology of the year is read by the Secretary.

(The audience rises while the Secretary read the list.)

I will ask Dean Fiero if the report of the Committee on Legal Education might accompany, or should it be separated from the report of the Committee on Preliminary Qualifications for Law Students? What is your preference, Dean Fiero?

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION To the State Bar Association:

Your Committee respectfully reports that it was appointed by virtue of a resolution of the Association adopted at the annual meeting in 1916, and "the whole subject of legal education and of qualifications and examinations for the bar" was referred to it. In addition to the Deans of the Law Schools