ington and our Bar Association want to take that up or not, or whether it could be accomplished. We would, of course, have to send delegates to the meeting at Washington and work for it to accomplish any practical results. The Treasurer, Mr. Wadhams, has stated that they would not meet at San Francisco because they would not meet where expositions were being held.

Mr. President: Mr. Reeves desires to make an announcement.

Mr. Reeves: This evening, at Masonic Hall, there will be a general reception, both for men and women. The Secretary calls my attention to the fact that there is something wrong in the program about that, but I am giving you the facts, and it will be at Masonic Hall, on this street, on the opposite side, in the Central Building, which is one block south. There will be dancing for those who want to dance, cards for those who want to play cards, and refreshments for those who desire to be refreshed, and general amusement, in such way as may be devised impromptu, for those who do not care to take part in either. Besides the lawyers and their wives and daughters who will be present, a good many of our town people will be out, and we hope that each and every one here, members of the association, with their wives and daughters and sweethearts, if they have them along, will be present. I know that those of our people who will be there will like you and I hope you will like them. It will be strictly informal. Nobody will be there with icicles up their backs, and it is eminently proper, the way it is to be conducted, for you to go in shirt-waists, if you want to. However, if there are those who want to wear a coat, there will be no objection to that.

Mr. President: The meeting will stand journed until one-thirty this afternoon.

ad

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Mr. President: The meeting will come to order. I understand that the Special Committee on Organization wishes now to again present its report. Is there objection on the part of anyone else here to the taking up of this report and these amendments to the constitution at this time? If not, we will proceed.

a

Mr. Burcham: Mr. President, Mr. Shaffer is having a full copy of that report that Mr. Nash filed this morning mimeographed so that every member could have it before him, with copy of the constitution and by-laws, for discussion. If we could wait a little I am sure that would greatly facilitate any discussion we might have upon it, and give a better understanding of it. Would the President postpone it?

Mr. President: I would be willing to postpone it, but the chairman of the committee thought it better to call it up at the beginning of this session.

Mr. Nash: I think it would be better to postpone it until the copies are distributed.

Mr. President: Very well, then, that will be done, and it will be taken up when the chairman of the committee informs me to that effect. The next report will be the report of the Legislative Committee, by Mr. Frank W. Bixby, of Bellingham.

Mr. Secretary: Mr. President, Mr. Bixby mailed his report, which was received here this morning, and stated, in a letter which I have here, that he was unable to be present. (Reads report.)

REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

To the Washington State Bar Association: Your Legislative Committee respectfully reports and recommends as follows:

First: We recommend that the law regarding endorsements of names on criminal informations be changed so as to give the Prosecuting Attorney authority to endorse names of witnesses upon informa

tions at any time prior to or during the trial, if, in his judgment, the testimony to be given by the witness is material.

The defendant always has this opportunity regardless of the time the knowledge of such witness is discovered, and we cannot see why or where any injustice would be done in extending the same courtesy to the state, and do know that justice is ofttimes defeated by the fact that the state cannot use certain witnesses because the names were not endorsed on the information in the statutory time.

Second: We recommend that a law be enacted giving a Prosecuting Attorney power to subpoena witnesses and question them relative to alleged crimes committed.

A glance through the reports of the various Prosecuting Attorneys will quickly show the importance of this recommendation, as the various reports show that a great number of informations were filed and were afterwards dismissed on motion and affidavit of the prosecutor for want of sufficient evidence. Had the prosecutor the power to have subpoenaed witnesses and made proper inquiries, in all probability the information would not have been filed, or had he taken the witnesses at a seasonable time evidence would have been secured whereby it would not have been necessary to dismiss the information for want of evidence to convict. In this state where Grand Juries are so seldom called and are so cumbersome and expensive, it does seem that this power should be granted to the public prosecutor, and that no injustice would be done thereby.

Third: We know of no one thing that is more urgently needed in the successful prosecution of law violations, especially in the larger counties where the prosecutor is almost continually engaged in jury and court work, than that of a special and confidential agent for the prosecutor.

As we understand the duties of the prosecutor, it is to take the facts as presented to his office, predicate the law thereon, and present the same to the court and jury, while as a matter of actual practice the prosecutor is obliged in a great many cases to develop the facts as well as predicate the law thereon and present the same to the court and jury. Of course the sheriff's office is supposed to do the former, but it frequently happens that there is not that co-operation between the two offices that there should be between co-adjutors, and if the prosecutor had the power to appoint the special confidential agent whose duties it would be to develop the evidence before the trial and marshal the witnesses for the Prosecutor during the trial, a great burden would be lifted from the Prosecutor and there would be less miscarriage of justice.

Fourth: As the statute now stands it is no crime for one person to solicit another to burn a building or commit any other crime unless the person solicited does commit the crime solicited.

We believe there should be a statute enacted making it a crime

4

for a person to solicit another to commit a crime whether the person solicited commits the crime or not.

Fifth:

We believe and recommend that a statute should be enacted, or if need be the constitution should be amended, so that a defendant in a criminal case may be convicted by ten jurors the same as in civil cases; and further, that when a defendant is in court and personally agrees to be tried by any number less than twelve jurors, and the trial proceeds with his consent, that a verdict of guilty should be legal and valid regardless of the Supreme Court to the contrary as heretofore expressed.

Sixth: We recommend that Section 3691 of Rem. & Bal. Annotated Codes and Statutes be emended so that after the word "state" in the third line thereof, there shall be added: "or any other corporation operating in the State of Washington," and at the conclusion of said Section adding the words, "and that a certified copy of said certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the corporate existence of said corporation."

At the present time to prove corporate existence of a company that was not organized in the county wherein suit is started, it is necessary for the Public Prosecutor to secure a certified copy of the articles of the said company from the Secretary of State, all of which consumes more time than it should, and likewise is very expensive.

Seventh: We recommend that Sec. 2457 of Rem. & Bal. Annotated Codes and Statutes be amended by striking therefrom the proviso so that the Public Prosecutor may proceed to file informations and prosecute the crime of adultery the same as he would in prosecuting any other crime.

Under the wording of the statute as it now exists no prosecution for the commission of this crime can be commenced except on complaint of the husband, and our Supreme Court has recently held that the Public Prosecutor cannot file an information, but that the same must be first started in the Justice Court.

There is no good reason why the wife should not have the same right to complain as the husband; and further, there is no good reason why the husband should not be prosecuted for holding sexual intercourse with a female other than his wife, whether the female be married or not, and to that end we belive that the statute should be changed to conform to the above recommendations.

Eighth: We further recommend that Sec. 2448 of the said Annotated Codes and Statutes be amended in the penal section thereof so as to permit of a fine of not more than $1,000, or the jail or penitentiary sentence as is now provided in the discretion of the court.

At the present time if the defendant is found guilty there is no alternative but jail sentence, and for that reason there is often a miscarriage of justice, for the reason that the juries are loth to send

physicians to jail, whereas they would find them guilty and thereby lessen the crime of abortion if a fine could be imposed.

Ninth: We recommend a statute giving the state power to appeal to the Supreme Court to settle a question of law when, in the opinion of the Prosecutor, the instructions of the court to the jury do not correctly state the law, or error has been made by the court in the matter of admission of evidence.

As the law now is the state has no appeal after evidence is introduced, and if the court should make error in its ruling in the matter of introducing the evidence or giving instructions, the state has no way of having the same reviewed by the Supreme Court so as to ascertain the law for future cases. The state should have this power, so that if error has been made by the court in one case against the state, the Prosecutor's hands need not be tied in future cases. As the law now stands many timid courts are inclined to ride on the shoulders of the Public Prosecutor in the matter of rulings, for the evident reason that if error is made against the state there is slight probability that the same will ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court, for the reason above stated.

Tenth: As the statute now stands judges of the Superior Court have power to suspend sentences imposed on minors convicted of a felony. We recommend that a statute be enacted so as to give judges of the Superior Court power to suspend or alter sentences on all persons convicted of misdemeanors.

It frequently happens that a suspended sentence will have a more beneficial effect than its full imposition and great latitude should be given the court in the matter of imposing and enforcing its judgment sentences.

Eleventh: Under the rulings of our Supreme Court in State vs. Poyner, 57 Washington 492, wherein it is laid down, "There must be a living together as if the conjugal relation existed and the illicit intercourse must be habitual and not merely occasional." It is next to impossible to secure a conviction under 2457, Rem. & Bal. Codes and Statutes for lewd living.

We therefore recommend that a statute be enacted making it lewd co-habitation for men and women who are not husband and wife to live together where a single act of illicit intercourse is proven.

From the very nature of the crime it is difficult for the state to prove even a single act of illicit intercourse, and where, under the wording of our Supreme Court, the state must prove not merely occasional, but habitual acts, as stated before, it is well nigh impossible to secure a conviction and the crime of lewd co-habitation is practically a licensed one.

Twelfth: We recommend that House Bill No. 347, as introduced by the Judiciary Committee, February 5th, 1913, being a proposed probate code, be enacted into legislation.