of a journal, means to require a special probate journal?

Mr. Sickles: No. In our practice in King County we do have a probate journal, because it is easier and better for us to keep it in that way, but I presume in other counties one journal, perhaps, takes in all subjects. In our practice probate matters are all in one journal.

(Continues reading, "In our court, etc.")
(Interpolated:)

As I have stated before, it seems to me that everything that could properly be classed as probate procedure should be included in this proposed code, so it will all be together in any law book you pick up to look up the subject of probate law, and, while I think of it, referring to the suggestion of Mr. Henderson in regard to the binding of all orders of uniform size in the original condition in which they were filed, I would only say this: While it would prevent a considerable amount of work, it would, in a large county, that is, in a county doing a large amount of legal business, probably be a great inconvenience to attorneys. For instance, in probate matters, there would be anywhere from twenty to one hundred orders a day, and we will say it is a date five days back from now; one of the attorneys wants to see an order of that date, gets that bundle of orders out and then Mr. Stedman or some other attorney comes along and wants to see something of the same date, and it will be somewhat of a matter of annoyance to attorneys, and that subject I speak of in the next matter that I am going to read.

(Reading: "We now come to the question, etc.")

(Interpolated:)

There are many objections to filing in duplicate. One applies particularly to our county clerks and that is that they have to file them and put them away, and there are others that occur to my mind, so

that I think the only way is to copy them and record them as we have done in the past.

(Finishes paper.) (See Appendix.) (Applause.) Mr. President: It is now time to have some action upon the report of the Legislative Committee. A motion will be entertained.

Mr. Grosscup: Mr. President, we have before us, apparently, the report of the Legislative Committee approving the probate code. I think it is utterly impracticable to take up these things section by section, yet there is no other satisfactory way to do. Now, I think one of the reasons why the legislature has given so little regard to the recommendations of the Bar Association is the fact that these Bar Association recommendations are too frequently immature. Our recommendation to the legislature should be in some concrete form. In other words, if we are to recommend a probate code, it should go there as a completed entirety having the sanction and backing of this Association; not certain sections of it, but the whole code, so that the entire proposed law that goes to the legislature goes with the backing of this Association, and it should be the deliberate and mature backing of this Association, not simply some hasty, inane consideration. Now, here we have a probate code before us. one section of that code, just as an illustration, it provides that property, an inheritance, may be taken away from a person without a petition, or notice, or any other form of procedure, which, in my opinion, is directly contrary to the supreme law of the land. Another section provides that community property, after the death of one spouse, when it becomes a vested estate, may be taken away without a hearing. Suppose we adopt a code of this kind and suppose the legislature takes our word, and the court then, on mature and deliberate consideration, should set these sections aside, what would the people have a right to think of the Association? I

In

think we should adopt some form here of deliberate action, whatever that is. Now, we have approached it on the right line, in connection with Mr. Henderson's review of this proposed law, but I dare say there is not a man here this afternoon who is ready to vote on whether this code shall be sent up to the legislature with the approval of this Association or not. We are not ready to take it up section by section. It would take an entire session of this meeting. I therefore, in accord with Mr. Sullivan's letter, move that this matter of the probate code be referred to a committee of thirteen lawyers, to be appointed by the President, and by them reviewed and to report at the next Bar Association meeting.

Mr. Burcham: If that is to be done, and it seems to me there are excellent reasons for it, should we not in the meantime take such action as to inform the legislature that the Bar Association does not desire its adoption?

Mr. Grosscup: Yes, certainly; that this Association is not ready to report a probate code to the legislature. My motion would be that it be left to a committee of thirteen and that the Secretary give such notice to the legislature, that it has been referred to a committee of thirteen to report at the next meeting of the Bar Association, because the Association is not well enough informed to make a recommendation at this time to the legislature.

Mr. Delle: I want to second what Mr. Grosscup has said; and just along that line I wish to state that under the present statute relating to non-intervention wills there is a serious defect of procedure or, rather, of want of procedure to determine who the heirs are. The proposed code does not cure that defect, and it seems to me that that is a very important provision that should be thought over before we adopt any proposed amendments. I will second Mr. Grosscup's motion.

Mr. President: Any remarks?

Mr. Jones: Mr. President: This does give me a great deal of pleasure to hear this discussion because, as you know, for about twenty years I have been presenting to the Bar Association the proposition of a code commission. Now, this is full-this proposed code-of the same errors that are in the present code and some of them look as though they were very simple and thoroughly covered. For instance, there is one here which provides, right at the beginning of the code-a very simple thing-about the proof of a will, in which it provides that "when one of the witnesses to any such will shall be examined and the other witness or witnesses are dead, insane or their residence unknown, then proof shall be taken of the handwriting of the testator and of the witness. That is a simple thing, but there is absolutely no provision in here for a case where the witness may be alive, where he may be perfectly sane, where his residence may be known and yet you can not get his testimony. We had a case, just finished a few weeks ago, in King County, in which the witness was alive, he was sane, his residence in California was well known, but he had gone to the Balkan war, and for two years and a half it has been impossible to prove a will because he has been moving with his regiment and he could not get anywhere where he could even depose in regard to the will, but it is not covered by the code. We got his testimony two or three months ago, but meanwhile the taxes had piled up and the property had been sold for delinquent taxes two or three times. Just waiting to find a man who was in the war. There is nothing in this code that covers it. You can go right on through with every code of this kind, and every lawyer will find some fault in it. If you provide for a permanent code commission you do away with all that because they are always in session, and a lawyer finding some little flaw as that which comes into his practice then communicates with the code

commission, which is always in session at Olympia, and at the next session of the legislature, without the Bar Association having to be called to determine in regard to that matter, it will be taken up and remedied, and every lawyer, whether a member of the Bar Association or not, will have his day in court. I want to oppose the motion of Mr. Grosscup, although I think it is better than any motion that can be made to adopt this, because, as has been said, we cannot pass upon this matter now, but it seems to me that this matter should simply be received and ordered laid over until our next session. I do not think there is any use in having a committee of thirteen lawyers any more than the committee that has just passed on it, any more than a committe of five or seven. I think any code that is passed by us to correct these objections will be no good. The criminal code was passed upon by good lawyers, and look at what we got. Our supreme court has passed upon our laws, and defined particular laws, for many years. Lots of them are useless, lots of them are absurd, lots of them are no good, perhaps, but I think it is better to let well enough alone until you get to a place where you are willing to codify our laws, simplify our laws, have a code commission to keep those laws in proper form and see that every law fits into the code which you once adopt. I just want to say this, further, that I know the opposition there is to the code commission plan. I know it will always exist. This Bar Association has twice recommended it, and no attention was paid to it by the legislature because the legislature is always too busy, but it will be just as much too busy to revise this code as it will to revise anything else, and it ought to be taken out of the hands of the legislature, except to pass something that has been first thoroughly examined for a period of a good deal more than the thirty or sixty days that the legislature can give to it.