PROCEEDINGS. TACOMA, WASHINGTON,, July 15, 1896. The Washington State Bar Association met in annual session at the U. S. court room in the Chamber of Commerce building in the city of Tacoma at 10 o'clock A. M., and was called to order by Hon. Charles S. Fogg, President. Present: Hon. Charles S. Fogg, President; Harold Preston, Vice President; Richard K. Boney, Vice President; Nathan S. Porter, Secretary, and a quorum of members. Hon. John Arthur moved that inasmuch as the record of the proceedings of the previous annual session had been printed and was in the hands of all the members, the reading thereof by the Secretary be dispensed with. Motion carried. The President called ex-President John Arthur to the chair and read to the Association his address. (See Appendix.) The Secretary presented the reports of Secretary and Treasurer, which were referred to the Executive Committee for examination and approval: SECRETARY'S ANNUAL REPORT. To the President and Members of the Washington State Bar Asso ciation: GENTLEMEN I have the honor to submit for your consideration, this, my report for the year ending July 15th, 1896: Total number of members at last meeting. 142 38 180 Died 2 Present membership. 178 Cash received for fees of 38 members, prior to July 15th.. $190 7 $197 By cash paid to Treasurer Howe July 22d, 1895.. August 15th, 1895 Treasurer Peters, November 27th, 1895. STATEMENT OF THE FINANCES OF THE ASSOCIATION. To cash as per balance from last report.. $150 32 5 5 5 $197 $26 30 190 00 7 00 $223 30 $11 64 126 50 138 14 $85 16 N. S. PORTER, TREASURER'S ANNUAL REPORT. SEATTLE, WASH., July 15, 1896. To the Washington State Bar Association: GENTLEMEN I have the honor to submit this my annual The Secretary read the report of the Executive Committee, which was, on motion, adopted: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, TACOMA, WASH., October 10, 1896. Executive Committee met pursuant to adjournment. (See Proceedings of 1895, page 38.) After full consideration of all the sub jects presented to it for discussion at the next annual meeting of the Association, the following were selected: 1, Probate Law; 2, Judicial Legislation; 3, Landlord and Tenant; 4, Corporations; 5, Bench and Bar; 6, Record Notice and Curative Acts; 7, Contributory Negligence; 8, Pioneer Judges and Lawyers. The following named attorneys were selected to write articles thereon to be read before the Association at its next annual meet ing: 1. Judge Emmett N. Parker, of Tacoma. 2. T. Ñ. Allen, of Olympia. 3. Judge James Z. Moore, of Spokane. 4. George Donworth, of Seattle. 5. W. T. Dovell, of Walla Walla. 6. Alfred Battle, of Seattle. 7. R. S. Holt, of Tacoma. 8. N. T. Caton, of Sprague. The Secretary was instructed to notify the above named attorneys of their selection. No further business appearing, the committee adjourned. CHAS. S. FOGG, Attest: N. S. PORTER, President. Secretary. ELECTIONS TO MEMBERSHIP. The following named attorneys were elected to become members of the Association: Walter Christian, Frank Allyn, R. G. Hudson, James H. Parker, F. Campbell, George S. Brown, George W. Fogg, P. Tillinghast, George T. Reed, R. S. Holt, Arthur Remington, R. B. Lehman, and Herbert S. Griggs, of Tacoma. Alfred Battle, Edward Brady, and Fred. Rice Rowell, of Seattle. W. T. Dovell, of Walla Walla. Ernest C. Macdonald, of Olympia. F. H. Brownell, of Everett. E. W. Ross, of Castle Rock. J. W. A. Nichols, of Steilacoom. Chief Justice Hoyt, by invitation, briefly discussed the matter of the submission of causes in the supreme court. He said that so many cases were brought before that court that one of two courses must be pursued: either business must be permitted to accumulate until one or two years would elapse before causes could be heard, or lawyers must be limited in time in presenting their causes and making their arguments; that the court had decided to keep up with its business, and in order to accomplish such a result, had limited attorneys to one-half hour on a side in which to present and argue their causes; that he would like to hear suggestions from the bar on this question. Mr. Shippen said, that in conversations with Justice Miller of the supreme court of the United States, he had learned that long speeches were not required. The attorney must first understand the jurisdiction of the court and the nature of his case which must be clearly stated; that it was unnecessary to read much law, as the court was supposed to know the law and to be familiar with its own decisions. Mr. T. N. Allen said he thought that even the judges of the supreme court might be taught; that he saw no way better than the present method; he thought attorneys should be allowed full time to argue their cases orally; he was opposed to any change that would restrict oral argument; that the judges were forced to hear them, but when they retired to their chambers none but they could tell what they did with briefs. Mr. Evans said, that this is a very important question; that the supreme court was to pass upon and settle the law of the case, which should be applicable to all similar cases; that judges are presumed to know the law; that he believed that all cases carried to the supreme court should be carefully considered; that the lawyer has some pride in it, and if the time for argument was limited to one-half hour the tendency would be to keep cases out of court that are taken there merely for delay; that he would like to see the subject referred to a committee. Mr. Forster spoke in relation to the advisability of increasing the amount necessarily involved to entitle litigants to an appeal. Judge Hoyt said that much time of the supreme court was taken up in the consideration of submitted cases, and frequently by lawyers who were really both on one side, the object being to get the court to construe a law before it had been passed upon or construed by any inferior court. Such proceedings, he thought, should be discouraged. Mr. Stiles said that oral arguments as well as the number of authorities were frequently exhaustive, and it sometimes seemed that attorneys were talking to earn their fee; that our statutes were hotch potch-misunderstood and not understandable; that there was a way of simplifying them-by legislation; that the records were very cumbersome; that this applied to county and municipal governments as well; that his experience on the bench. was, that it was more satisfactory to hear oral argument; that he could learn more by listening to the arguments of the lawyers than by reading their briefs; that they would select such portions of their record as were directly in point, and briefly state their cases. On motion, the association adjourned till 2 o'clock P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. Association called to order by the president. On motion of Mr. Forster, the subject of the "Submission of Cases to the Supreme Court" was continued for discussion. Mr. Jacobs said he favored oral arguments in the supreme court; that lawyers, having carefully studied their cases, could present important points to the court very impressively. Mr. Parsons said he had decided ideas regarding oral arguments. Without them, the labor of courts would be increased; that attorneys must have time to properly present their cases or leave their business half done. The duty of an attorney was to convince the court that he was right. Let the court know exactly what the case is; there was no better way to bring a case before the court than by oral argument. He believed attorneys should be heard as well as seen; they had a right to present their client's case fully. Mr. Allyn said he had a personal preference for oral argument; but in a majority of states, courts are limiting arguments, and in many, they were almost wholly eliminated. Judge Murray, of Ohio, by request, spoke upon the subject, and some of his remarks were, that in Ohio, where oral arguments had been quite extensively allowed, as a result the courts were behind with their work; and, as litigants were entitled to speedy trials, and that limiting oral arguments seemed to abridge their rights, |