better express our interest in our profession and in our State than by coming regularly to these meetings, and taking active part in them.

(Applause.)

Mr. B. F. Abbott (Atlanta): Do I understand that the subject we have been discussing lies over until the next meeting? The President: The Chair will entertain any motion by yourself or any one else.

Mr. B. F. Abbott (Atlanta): I move, sir, that it is the sense of this Bar Association that the judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Superior Courts, and the City Courtscourts of record-should wear judicial robes. That is our recommendation. Of course they will exercise what is known as "Local Option." We cannot speak in a mandatory way, but we can recommend.

Mr. J. Ferris Cann (Savannah): I think that the suggestion of Mr. Black is peculiarly appropriate, that the ex-judges wear gowns. I move, sir, that each judge of every court in this State be required to don a gown, whether he is at this time on the bench or retired.

The President: It strikes me that motion is unconstitutional, and the Chair will so rule.

Mr. P. W. Meldrim (Savannah): Can the ladies vote on this proposition?

Mr. Hamilton Douglass (Atlanta): I move that the judges be heard in their own defense, and that we hear from Judge Ellis.

Judge W. D. Ellis (Atlanta): That may be all right, but it would be proper to reverse the order, and hear from the judges in the order of their rank. Let us hear from Chief Justice Fish.

Chief Justice Fish (Atlanta): I don't think that the judges ought to take any part in this discussion. I think that they ought to stand ready to take such medicine as this Association is prepared to give. I don't know what the opinions of the other justices of the Supreme Court are in reference to this matter, but I am quite sure that they stand ready to follow any suggestion that this Association in its wisdom may make. I don't know anything about gowns I am like the distinguished first

speaker on the subject-I have never worn one. I don't know what sort of a figure I would cut in one. I will say this, however, that some of the justices of the Supreme Court are far more in need of wigs than gowns.

(Calls for Judge Lumpkin.)

Justice Lumpkin (Atlanta): I think the Association has been very patient with me to-day, and I don't feel that I should impose myself further upon you. We are defendants in this case, and we are hardly in position to be judges on this subject. I am not sure whether the resolution that has been offered has been offered in the wisdom or in the jocularity of the meeting, but I hardly think that we should take part in expressing our opinions, but with the blush of modesty we will leave that to others.

(Calls for Judge Cobb.)

Judge Andrew J. Cobb (Athens): Speaking for myself, I would be very much delighted to see the conditions favorable to the wearing of gowns by the judges, at least of our courts of last resort, but we all know that we must not go forward with our ideas without regard to present conditions. There are a great many persons in Georgia who would not understand exactly what was being done if we were to adopt right now this method of the past, which has a great deal to commend it, and I do not think that it would be doing justice to our judges to put them in a position where they might be criticized for not regarding the recommendation of this Association. Now, as has been said, we don't know whether this recommendation, if passed to-day, is really in jest or in earnest. I don't know whether it is or not, and I have heard all that has transpired. You would have to refer it to a special master to determine whether it is in jest or in earnest. As I say, I wish conditions were such that our judges could adopt robes, and not shock public sentiment. It is immaterial whether that sentiment is right or wrong, it exists. We may be confronted with a state of affairs that existed in New York, when a resolution was introduced in the Legislature of that State to compel the judges to take them off. We don't want to hold them up to the jibes of the public, although we may

believe that the public is wrong. I therefore move, sir, that this matter be indefinitely postponed, that is, that action upon this matter be indefinitely postponed.

This motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. J. H. Merrill (Thomasville): It is customary for us to express our appreciation of the accommodations that we have enjoyed at places where we have met, and from what I have been able to observe, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, I think that this resolution will be approved:

Resolved, That the thanks of this Association be tendered Messrs. Scoville Brothers, proprietors of the Wigwam Hotel, for their prompt response to our many requests, and for the satisfactory hotel accommodations they have furished us.

Mr. President, I move the adoption of that resolution.
This motion was seconded and carried.

Mr. B. F. Abbott (Atlanta): I move that the Secretary be instructed to include in the appendix to the annual report the name of each Local Bar Association in the State and the officers thereof.

This motion was seconded and carried.

A motion to adjourn sine die was then offered, and after being properly seconded was carried and the President declared the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting adjourned.

Examined and approved by Executive Committee, May 28, 1908.

J. H. MERRILL,

Chairman Executive Committee.

APPENDIX B.

ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT,

SAMUEL B. ADAMS

OF SAVANNAH.

Members of the Georgia Bar Association, Ladies and Gentlemen: My theme is LAWLESSNESS.

With a lawyer nothing can be more sacred than law. His studies, his work, his aspirations, deal with the law. If he be a true lawyer, he must love the law, be profoundly impressed with its majesty and the vital importance of obedience to its mandates. He ought to realize, as men of other callings cannot, that the peril of perils to society and to government, to everything that is worth while, is lawlessness. We may endure and even wax rich and prosperous, with many grave and glaring imperfections and vices, grievously afflicting the body politic, provided a safe majority is on the law's side; but let a majority, or a large minority, of the people become lawless, and our doom is sealed. Anarchy is the culmination of all woes, the last possibility of the work of devils and fiends.

The lawyer is the "law's man," its defender, its representative, and, if need be, its martyr. If a man licensed to practice does not regard the law as a very sacred and a very vital thing, whatever else he may be, he is not a true lawyer.

Be it constantly repeated, to the everlasting credit of our profession, that lawyers have always stood in the forefront when law, or the law's institutions, have been assailed and have valiantly and unceasingly struggled for its supremacy and its advancement. They have been the leaders in every great movement designed to advance popular rights under the law, and to