Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

for the improvement of the law in the particular line of preparing and recommending to the state legislatures proposed statutes on subjects on which uniformity is desirable and which yet are outside of the scope of congressional action. The conference has also attained a very considerable degree of success with a number of its proposed laws by procuring their enactment. Within the last three years the work of that organization has been broadened so as to include case law, by directing the attention of the appellate courts in all the states to the desirability of harmonizing their decisions on the Uniform State Laws which have been adopted by the states, so that diverse lines of decisions shall not grow up upon identical statutes. Of course, this principle of adoption of rulings of courts of other states upon identical or similar statutes is very familiar to the profession, but there has been a striking disregard of its application to the case of these uniform statutes in numbers of the states. Since the special committee constituted on that subject has called attention to it and has circulated information about it among the judiciary, a gratifying increase in the degree of attention paid by the judiciary to the Uniform State Laws and the decisions of other courts thereon has been observed; and instances where the fact that a given statute of a state is one of these uniform laws adopted by numbers of other states, and ruled on by their judiciary, is ignored are becoming much less frequent.

Forty-eight states and the two territories of Alaska and Hawaii, the District of Columbia, the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico, making 53 jurisdictions in all, have appointed commissioners to attend the annual Uniform Law Conference. At these Uniform Law Conferences usually from thirty to forty jurisdictions are represented.

The following acts have been prepared by the Uniform Law Conference, in all cases after a number of years of drafting, criticism and revision spent on them, and they have been enacted by the numbers of jurisdictions enumerated for each act:

Jurisdictions

Where Adopted. Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act..

47 Uniform Sales Act........

14 Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act.

30 Uniform Divorce Act.....

3 Uniform Bills of Lading Act..

13 Uniform Stock Transfer Act..

9 Uniform Family Desertion Act..

9 Uniform Probate of Foreign Wills Act..

11 Uniform Marriage Evasion Act..

4 Uniform Partnership Act..

3 Uniform Workmen's Compensation Act.

1 The following acts have also been prepared and recommended to the states for enactment, but have not yet been enacted by any state: Uniform Marriage License Act, Uniform Child Labor Law, Uniform Acknowledgements Act, Uniform Cold Storage Act.

All of these four proposed statutes have been finally approved by the conference only within the last three years, so that there has been very little opportunity for their enactment by the state legislatures.

Of these proposed acts three have been adopted in this state, viz.: The Negotiable Instruments Act, which is Chapter 149 of the Session Laws of 1899; 1 Rem. & Bal. Stat., 1915 Ed., Secs. 3393-3586. The Warehouse Receipts Act, which is Chapter 99 of the Session Laws of 1913; I Rem. & Bal. Stat., 1915 Ed., Secs. 3369-1-61. The Bills of Lading Act, which is Chapter 159 of the Session Laws of 1915; 1 Rem. & Bal. Stat., 1915 Ed., Secs. 3385-1-56.

The statute on the Probate of Foreign Wills, which is Chapter 8 of the Session Laws of 1911, covers nearly the same ground, but does not follow the Uniform Act on that subject.

The more important of these acts and those on the more complicated subjects have been drawn by experts and specialists in their several lines employed by the Conference, and every act has been subjected to most vigorous criticism and debate, in which there is no partisanship, based either on political or geographical lines, but simply an effort to obtain the best possible expression of the law, both in plainness of statement and accuracy and brevity of phrase. Line by line and almost word by word the draft is subjected to searching criticism. The conferences last from four to seven days, frequently with three sessions a day, and there is also a very large amount of committee work done between the annual sessions. The Conference is averse to novelties in legislation, and its efforts are devoted to simplifying, harmonizing and perfecting the law of the states on subjects where it ought to be uniform, instead of invading new and debatable ground.

Your committee, therefore, feels that the bar in this progressive state should take a greater interest in this subject than it has done heretofore, and that more should be accomplished at the biennial sessions of the Legislature in the adoption of at least some of these acts. Indeed, we see no reason why nearly all of them should not be adopted in this state. Towards this end the approval and the active aid of the members of this Association will be most valuable, and the Committee earnestly bespeaks that assistance from their brethren of the bar, and particularly of this Association, during the coming session of our Legislature. Copies of any of the acts mentioned in this report can be obtained from our Chairman.

All of which is respectfully submitted.
July 29, 1916.

CHARLES E. SHEPARD, Seattle:
WILL H. FOUTS, Dayton;
GEORGE DONWORTH, Seattle;
W. E. McCROSKEY, Palouse;
W. B. STRATTON, Seattle.

Committee on Uniform State Laws.

Mr. President: The report will be filed. The report of the Committee of Publications, Will H. Anders, Chairman. Is Mr. Anders present? Have you the report, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. Secretary: No report.

Mr. President: The report of the Committee on Federal Legislation, Judge Rudkin, Chairman.

Mr. Secretary: No report.

Mr. President: Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, Mr. Chas. P. Lund, Chairman. Is Mr. Lund present? Any report?

Mr. Secretary: No, he is not here. No member of the committee here.

Mr. President: No report. The report of the Committee on Judiciary and Judicial Administration, Mr. Otto B. Rupp.

Mr. Rupp: The Secretary has the report.
Mr. Secretary: I suggest that Mr. Rupp read it.

Mr. President: Will you step forward, Mr. Rupp, and present your own child for baptism.

(Report read by Mr. Rupp.)

..

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL

ADMINISTRATION.

To the Washington State Bar Association:

Your Committee on Judiciary and Judicial Administration begs to report as follows:

In 1914 this Committee made a report to the Association in which it recommended that the Constitution of this state be amended so as to permit of the creation of intermediate appellate courts, and the raising of the salaries of Judges of the Superior Courts. That report was adopted. Every reason which existed for the adoption of that report still exists. The number of appealed cases has not declined; the labor imposed upon the Supreme Court has not been reduced; the cost of living has not been lowered.

This Committee, therefore, believes that, with some slight changes, this report should be re-adopted, and that a committee should be appointed to appear before the Legislature and urge the Legislature to take appropriate action.

I.

We recommend the amendment of certain provisions of the Constitution so as to give the Legislature plenary power in this regard To that end we recommend that Section 1, of Article IV, of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

“The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a Supreme Court, Superior Court, Justices of the Peace, and such intermediate

appellate courts and other courts inferior to the Supreme Court as the Legislature may provide.”

That section now reads as follows:

"Section 1. Judicial Power, Where Vested. The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a Supreme Court, Superior Courts, Justices of the Peace, and such inferior courts as the Legislature may provide."

We recommend that Section 4, of Article IV, of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

“The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus and quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law. The Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its original, appellate and revisory jurisdiction. Each of the judges shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the state upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before him or before the Supreme Court, or before any other court of record of the state or any judge thereof."

That section now reads as follows:

“Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus and quo warranto and mandamus as to all state officers, and appellate jurisdiction in all actions and proceedings, excepting that its appellate jurisdiction shall not extend to civil actions at law for the recovery of money or personal property when the original amount in controversy or the value of the property does not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars, unless the action involves the legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll, municipal fine, or the validity of a statute. The Supreme Court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari, and all other writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction. Each of the judges shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the state upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before himself, or before the Supreme Court, or before any Superior Court of the state, or any judge thereof."

We recommend that Section 12, of Article IV, of the Constitution be amended so as to read as follows:

“The Legislature shall prescribe by law the jurisdiction and powers of any intermediate appellate court, or other court inferior to the Supreme Court which may be established in pursuance of this constitution.”

That section now reads as follows:

“Sec. 12. Inferior Courts. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the jurisdiction and powers of any of the inferior courts which may be established in pursuance of this Constitution.”

We recommend that Section 15, of Article IV, of the Constitution be amended so as to read as follows:

"No judge of a court of record shall be eligible to any other office or public employment than a judicial office or employment during the term for which he shall have been elected.”

That section now reads as follows:

“Sec. 15. Ineligibility of Judges. The judges of the Supreme Court and the judges of the Superior Court shall be ineligible to any other office or public employment than a judicial office or employment during the term for which they shall have been elected.”

We recommend that Section 17, of Article IV, of the Constitution be amended so as to read as follows:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of judge of any court of record unless he shall have been admitted to practice in the courts of record of this state, or of the Territory of Washington, and has at all times since his admission to practice in this state been entitled to practice in the courts of record of this state.”

That section now reads as follows:

“Sec. 17. Eligibility of Judges. No person shall be eligible to the office of Judge of the Supreme Court or Judge of a Superior Court unless he shall have been admitted to practice in the courts of record of this state or of the Territory of Washington."

We recommend that Section 28, of Article IV of the Constitution be amended so as to read as follows:

"Every Judge of any court of record shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath that he will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Washington, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of judge to the best of his ability, which oath shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.”

That section now reads as follows:

“Sec. 28. Oath of Judges. Every Judge of the Supreme Court, and every Judge of a Superior Court shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath that he will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of judge to the best of his ability, which oath shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.”

We recommend that there be added to Article IV of the Constitution an additional section, to be referred to as Section 29, which shall read as follows:

“The Legislature may provide that a Judge of any court of record may sit temporarily in any other court of record, and discharge the duties of such court."

II.

Section 14, of Article IV of the Constitution provides that the salary of Superior Court Judges shall be $3,000 per annum, but that the same may be increased by the Legislature. No change has been made by the Legislature in respect thereto, except an enactment in 1907 that in counties of the first class such salary may be increased by order of the Board of County Commissioners to an amount not exceeding $4,000, and that whenever such salary shall be so increased, the amount of such increase shall be paid by the county.

That there has been a great increase in the cost of living since the adoption of the Constitution, and that the salary of the Superior Court Judges is grossly inadequate, are facts of common knowledge.

We recommend that this Association memorialize the Legislature to increase the salaries of the judges of the Superior Court so that such salary, in counties of the first class, shall be the sum of $5,000 per annum, and in all other counties the sum of $4,000 per annum.

« ZurückWeiter »