to keep them out of Court, and settled many difficult cases without resorting to litigation. Deceased Members of the Bar, not Members of the W. IRVING MACE, of Cambridge, Dorchester County. Born JAMES J. ARCHER, of Bel Air, Harford County. Died on May 24, 1921, at the age of 61 years. CHARLES W. PRETTYMAN. Born at Brookeville, Montgomery County, April 1, 1857. Died at Rockville May 5, 1921. JOHN FRANKLIN BOHANAN, of St. Mary's County, was born in 1840, and died in Washington, D. C., on February 17, 1922. JOHN E. STONE was born in Charles County about 1862, and died February 24, 1922. WILLIAM COLTON, of Baltimore City. Born.........., and died March... 1922. THE PRESIDENT: The report of the Committee on Legal Biography, following the custom of the Association, will be printed in the annual report. Next in order is the report of the Committee on Nominations, John M. Requardt, Chairman. MR. REQUARDT: The Committee on Nominations with unanimity of action reports as follows: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS President ALBERT C. RITCHIE, Annapolis, Md. Vice-Presidents JUDGE ROBERT F. DUER....Princess Anne ..W. WORTHINGTON HOPKINS.. Bel Air First Circuit.. THOMAS DAWSON.. Cumberland . Westminster .Rockville .Up. Marlboro . Baltimore . Baltimore THE PRESIDENT: The report of the Committee will be acted on at Saturday morning's session. That will give Mr. Requardt ample time to see the members of the Association and to be assured that his ticket will be elected. THE SECRETARY: The Treasurer wishes me to announce that the members in attendance should be sure to register, otherwise you will not get fountain pens or a seat at the banquet. We have arranged for the morning papers from Baltimore to be just outside the door at the registration desk at 8 o'clock in the morning. The afternoon papers will be there at 7:30 P. M. THE PRESIDENT: This evening the meeting will be called to order at 8 o'clock and we shall have an address by Honorable William L. Frierson, former Assistant Attorney General and Solicitor of the United States, the subject being "The Permanent Court of International Justice.” A number of our members have had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Frierson and those who are here who have heard him, I am sure, will be glad to hear him again, and those who have not will be greatly pleased to hear him. The meeting adjourned until 8 o'clock P. M. EVENING SESSION The Association met at 8 o'clock P. M. THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen: Our speaker tonight is the Honorable William L. Frierson, some time Assistant Attorney General and Solicitor General of the United States. He is not only a student of legal problems but also of those larger questions which touch the citizen, the nation, and the world. He has selected for his subject "The Permanent Court of International Justice." I am sure we shall all be glad to hear him. THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE Address by HON. WILLIAM L. FRIERSON Mr. President; Ladies and Gentlemen: In bringing to your attention the recently established Permanent Court of International Justice now sitting at the Hague, I am impelled by the profound conviction that, if it shall succeed in commanding the confidence and respect of the world, more will have been accomplished for the happiness of the human race than has resulted from any single movement inaugurated by man. If it shall be so supported that it may fully perform the function it was designed to perform, the world will have taken the longest step yet taken in advancing human civilization. I think I may frankly discuss this subject without the fear of abusing the privilege which your invitation gives me. All political parties are committed to the policy of making all proper efforts to restore and maintain the peace of the world, and no party is committed to any definite policy with respect to an international court, though all favor an extension of the principle of arbitration. So I hope I may counsel freely with my brethren of the Bar and with American citizens of all shades of political faith and remain free from the charge of offensive partisanship. For four years, first as witnesses, and then as participants, we saw practically the whole civilized world drawn, nation by nation, into the deadly conflict which followed a quarrel between two petty European governments. When the war ended many great governments were prostrate and exhausted. Many lesser ones were frankly bankrupt, impoverished, and helpless. In this situation, thoughtful and practical men felt that stern necessity had added its inexorable force to the humanitarian and idealistic desire for peace. It seemed that an opportune time had arrived for bringing about a new order of things based on a new conception of national dignity and honor. It must be confessed that the conception of a world in which nations may, without the loss of dignity and prestige, assert their rights and adequately protect the interests of their people and yet not resort to arms, involves a revolution in human thought. It requires no slight departure from preconceived ideas of sovereignty to feel that a government may properly submit to any judgment, save its own, the rights of its citizens or matters which we have been accustomed to regard as touching its honor. And yet we have undoubtedly reached the point, where, if the old order of things is to continue, every government must face the constant danger that an over-burdened people will be driven to revolution and repudiation as the only means of relief. Some of us believed, and still believe, that the plan for a League of Nations offered the best, and an entirely feasible and proper means of making future wars, if not impossible, improbable. But there were those who thought that, in some of its features, it tended to the establishment of a super government, involving a surrender of some measure of sovereignty. They felt that we would be assuming some obligations which were contrary to our traditional policies. They felt that we would be taking upon ourselves risks which it would not be safe for this country to incur. They were not ready to enter into international engagements which, as they construed them, might increase rather than decrease the danger of our being drawn into foreign wars. And the Senate decreed that the United States should not enter the League. I shall not discuss the merits of the League of Nations or the wisdom of its rejection. It was opposed by Senators, one of them from my own State, whose patriotism and honesty of purpose and conviction, however widely I differ with them, I no more doubt than I doubt my own. But I am justified, by the utterances of leaders of all political parties, in saying that practically all Americans were, and are, in sympathy with the high purposes which President Wilson sought to ac-. complish by proposing the League of Nations. The treaty negotiated at Paris was rejected, not because Senators were unwilling that this Government should cooperate, in any way, with other nations to make peace more secure, not because they believed that all forms of concerted action would be repugnant to the spirit of our Constitution, not because they were opposed to every thing included in the particular plan proposed, but only because they found in that plan some things which they regarded as subject to insuperable objections. Hence we have the right to assume that those who, for this reason, felt it necessary to keep us out of the League will not oppose undertakings, otherwise unobjectionable, merely because they may have been included in the rejected treaty. The two leading objects sought to be accomplished, through the League, were general disarmament and an effective administration of international justice. Nearly all the great powers became members of the League and thus committed themselves to the accomplishment of these objects in the manner provided by the treaty which we had rejected. The United States is not a member of the League, but I am safe in saying that disarmament and international justice are subjects dear to the heart of America. Here, then are two purposes which, I may assume, without argument, our people earnestly desire to promote in every proper way. Having declined to join other nations in organizing the League, we had, perhaps, lost some of the commanding influence we might otherwise have exerted in shaping world policies. But, by observing proper courtesy and avoiding action likely to produce jealousies, we were still in a position to do much for world peace. Our part was to stand ready to cooperate with the League and other governments, to lead when cccasion required and to follow when most could be accomplished in that way. In the matter of disarmament, the League was naturally embarrassed by our failure to enter. Its policy in this regard would be controlled by the great naval powers. Neither one nor all of them could be expected to take radical action so long as the United States remained uncommitted to similar action. Here then was an occasion for our government to lead. And President Harding invited the great naval powers to confer with a view to the limitation of armaments. For the work of the conference, I have nought but praise. Much has been done to lessen the danger of recurring war. Heavy burdens of government have been lightened. Some questions that might have resulted in war have been peaceably settled. With Great Britain and the United States limited to |