The President:

The Special Committee on Uniform Judicial Procedure.

Thomas W. Shelton, of Virginia:

Those who were present at Washington and heard President Taft's address, or have read it in print, and have read the report, are quite familiar with what this committee has done, and with its origin and also what the committee hopes to be able to do before the 64th Congress. In order to insure your aid in this connection, I would say that the bill known as House Bill 133, as offered by Chairman Webb, was unanimously adopted by the Judiciary Committee of the House. It was looked upon as quite remarkable that the Republicans, the Progressives, and the Democrats should have sunk all differences; it was probably the only matter that could have been brought before the House upon which they would agree. It was carried to the Senate and referred to a special sub-committee of the Judiciary Committee, composed of Senators O'Gorman and Root, of New York, and Senator Walsh, of Montana. There was reason to believe that the sub-committee would report to the general committee the same day. It never has reported. After adjournment of the 63d Congress it transpired, through a letter written by Senator Walsh to Major Roote, of Montana, that he did not agree with the idea that the courts ought to make the rules, and has prevented the sub-committee from reporting. We have in writing the committal of a majority of the members of the Senate and House. Unless there shall again arise in the next Congress that peculiar thing which is called "senatorial courtesy " which seems able to defeat a majority, the bill is going to pass. In almost every state the Bar associations have endorsed this measure, and three national commercial organizations are demanding it.

We have reported in writing what the Conference of Judges has done. This is the second meeting of the judges, aside from that at Montreal, which was more of a meeting to organize. I received here, as Chairman of the committee, any number of communications from organizations like the Credit Men's Association, numbering thousands of business men, expressing approval of the Conference of Judges and offering to put up any amount of money necessary to promote its work. All that is needed is the travelling

expenses of each Chief Justice or his alternate. It occurred to us, however, that the way in which the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws are financed was most appropriate; and so we have asked the States to contribute, say $100 or $200 each, and now earnestly appeal to every lawyer for help with his legislature. It is a small premium to pay for insurance against conflicting opinions.

The committee recommends that it be authorized to appear before the Senate Committee for the purpose of bringing out the necessary harmony between our bill and H. R. 15,578.

On vote taken the recommendation was approved.

(See Report in Appendix, page 502.)

The President:

The Committee to Suggest Remedies and Formulate Proposed Laws to Prevent Delay and Unnecessary Cost in Litigation.

Paul Howland, of Ohio:

In the absence of the Chairman, and at the request of the members of the committee present, I beg leave to submit the report of this committee.

The report was printed in the July number of the JOURNAL and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into detail.

For several years past, your committee has come before the Association with a report expressing the hope that legislation might ultimately be enacted along certain lines, and in accordance with the positive instructions of the Association. On this occasion, however, your committee is able to report that certain legislation, which it has earnestly pressed upon Congress, has been enacted into law.

A bill, known as "The Equity Procedure Bill," which empowers the court to authorize the amendment and transfer of a case from the law side of the court to the equity side of the court, or vice versa, as the case may be, without suffering a non-suit, is now the law.

A bill providing for a review in the Supreme Court of the United States, regardless of whether the decision in the state court upheld the constitutionality of the state statute or not, is now the law.

Your committee, therefore, reports very substantial progress and moves the adoption of the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the special committee to suggest remedies and formulate proposed laws be continued with the powers heretofore conferred upon it, and that it be instructed to take such steps as it shall deem expedient to procure the passage of the bill of which a copy is annexed to this report and marked Schedule C, and also the bill in relation to the fees and mileage of United States Marshals referred to in the report, of which a copy marked Schedule E was annexed to the report presented in October, 1914."

On vote taken the resolution was adopted.

(See Report in Appendix, page 510.)

The President:

The Special Committee to Oppose the Judicial Recall.

Rome G. Brown, of Minnesota :

The report of the committee has been printed. It contains practically only one recommendation-that a committee for this sort of work be continued by the Association. The substance of the report is, that the committee believes that the cause of judicial recall in this country is on the wane and apparently dead, but that it needs watching.

Our work last year was strenuous-more so than some of you living in the East would suspect. The judicial recall was agitated in 15 or 16 out of 40 legislatures in session. Members of our committee stood as outposts in each state, keeping watch of the situation, with the result that in no legislature did the judicial recall, either in the form of the recall of judges or in the form of the recall of judicial decisions, make any progress. The proposed amendment passed by the Kansas Legislature in 1913 for submission at the general election in 1914, was unfortunately adopted. In the minutes of a legislature of 1913, a proposed amendment to the Constitution for recall of judges was passed, but upon submission to the people in 1914, was defeated by 40,000 votes. The work of this committee had something to do with that result.

There is not only a lack of progress in the cause, but there is evidence of decided reaction where the recall has been adopted. It is coming more and more into disfavor in Colorado, the only state that has adopted the recall of judicial decisions as well as

the recall of judges; it is getting in bad favor among the people in Nevada, and also among the people in California. The last issue of the Sunset Magazine shows that it is already discredited in California because it serves only as a means of intimidating judges. Our recommendation is that the committee be continued. We expect that our activities will be required much less in the future, and that the appropriation necessary will be considerably less in amount. Where we have had from $1500 to $2000 a year, we think that $500 a year will be sufficient in the future.

On vote taken the report was approved and its recommendations adopted.

(See Report in Appendix, page 518.)

The President:

The Special Committee on Government Liens on Real Estate. John T. Richards, of Illinois:

The committee makes only one recommendation. A bill was framed and reported by the committee at the last annual meeting of the Association and was then approved. The purpose of the bill was to afford a method by which the government could be made a party defendant in a proper case instituted for the removal of a government lien on an equity of redemption. The committee did not present the bill at the last session of Congress because it was a short session and Congress seemed overburdened with work. It was thought unwise to present a bill at that time in such circumstances.

The recommendation is that the committee be continued with directions to present the proposed act to the next session of Congress.

(See Report in Appendix, page 531.)

On vote taken the recommendation was adopted.

The President:

The Special Committee on Compensation to Federal Judiciary. The Secretary:

There is no report.

The President:

The Special Committee on Legislative Drafting.

William Draper Lewis, of Pennsylvania:

This is the third annual report of the committee. The appointment of the committee was due to a feeling that we should not only point out the evils resulting from poorly drafted bills in Congress and in state legislatures, but that we should also make constructive suggestions for correction of these evils. The first resolution appointing the committee in 1912 asked the committee to report whether there was not a possibility of the establishment of an agency, in connection with Congress and the state legislatures, to assist in the drafting of legislation. The committee made an affimative report to the effect that the establishment of legislative drafting and reference bureaus on right lines would contribute to the improvement of the form of legislaThe American Bar Association, at the meeting at which that report was made, recommended the establishment of such agencies by Congress and by those states which had not already established them, and the improvement along certain lines suggested by some of the agencies already established. Since that resolution was adopted one of the duties of the committee has been to urge the establishment of legislative drafting and reference bureaus. A number of bureaus have been established in the last few years, and the action of the Association in each case has been a decided contributing factor. Your action has also tended to improve the organization of bureaus heretofore established.

The work of the legislative drafting and reference bureaus of the country has been set forth in the appendix to the present annual report printed on page 594 in a series of letters from the heads of each of the drafting bureaus. In the first annual report of the committee, we not only recommended the establishment of these bureaus where not already established, but we went one step further and recommended that the Association see if it were not practicable to assist, with the co-operation of other bodies interested, in the creation of a manual of legislative drafting to contain forms for often repeated clauses, and also a discussion under a topical index of questions which come before a draftsman and the principles on which a draftsman should proceed. The Association adopted a resolution directing the committee to prepare a manual of legislative drafting and submit