paid money in lieu of military service, with which the lord hired mercenaries. This was called "scutage" or "escuage." It was the beginning of two important modern institutions, the modern standing army and the modern tenure between the landlord and his

tenant.

Since money was received for knight service, socage tenure and villeinage and all other tenures for service or provisions were changed into this tenure, where the rent or render may be paid in money, and this is now the usual return for the use of lands and

tenements.

The feudal system was well devised to defend by arms that which was obtained by arms; and probably better than any institution that could have been devised, it was calculated to and did hold a lawless and savage world in subjection until the renaissance of law as well as of arts and letters and manners could take place.

Both in England and on the continent it was in force during the period when institutions were in process of formation, and like the leaves and ferns of some early period in the earth's history, which, imbedded on its surface and in its depths, gave character to and marked the formation of clay and rock and soil.

That it supplied a great want, and did a great work for the first five or six centuries after the Gothic destruction of the western empire, cannot be doubted. It supplied all the government that mankind then had, it being understood that the great institutions of Rome then were no more.

In England, when it had forced from the coward and tyrant hand of King John that reiteration of the rights of the English people, known as Magna Charter; when it had furnished so much of chivalry and prowess to those efforts to secure the tomb of Christ, known as the Crusades; when it maintained the long, fierce struggle for succession to the crown, known as the War of the Roses; when it had built up the commons and established trial by jury and secured habeas corpus and checked the aggressions of prerogative; when it had fought the great war for freedom, where Cromwell led his Ironsides and Prince Rupert charged at the head of his Cavaliers, and where the annointed head of royalty fell at the block; when it had raised the character of Englishmen at home and extended their fame and power abroad; in a word, when it had taken

half savage England and made of it substantially the England of to-day, then by the act of 12 Charles II its further operation was concluded. But it had done its great work, and its ineffaceable impress is still seen on the institutions, in the laws and in the language of the laws in both Europe and America. It alone developed that chivalry which rescued the oppressed, raised woman from her servile condition and placed her by the side of man as his equal and companion, and as the first object of his solicitude and protection, and gave that ineffable charm to social intercourse and to civilization unknown to previous ages in the history of mankind.

It was, however, a human institution, the product of a rude people, at the beginning of a period well named "the dark ages;" the laws of Rome were unknown and silent and unsuited to those dismal times.

It is not to be exalted or even defended at all points, but like the life of some great man, is to be estimated in its value to his fellows, by the difficulties encountered and the work actually performed.

To the student of history, it will never lose its interest. Its history is the history of all the nations worth knowing after the fall of Rome and until that period which marked the revival of arts and letters, of morals and law, known as the Renaissance.

To the student of law, it is the key to many rules and axioms and institutions.

To the lover of romance, its life covers the period when Arthur, who was "rightwise born the king of all England," reigned; when Guinivere was "the fairest woman in all the land;" when the knights assembled at the "round table;" when in the Black Forest Robin Hood entertained the Black Knight of England; when chivalry did homage to beauty, and when the stories of Prester John, the Divining Rod and the Seven Sleepers, and other curious legends of men and sprites and fairies, were a part of the life of the people.

To the lover of religion, it protected the church and furnished that valor which was aroused at the call of Peter the Hermit, and fought those wars which have been the wonder of all subsequent ages.

To us as a people, its body is embalmed in our institutions and can never be buried out of sight, and wherever the common law

has a place in the jurisprudence of a people, there will a knowledge of the feudal system be a necessary part of the equipment of the lawyer and statesman.

Though never in full vigor in the United States, yet Chief Justice Tilghman thus speaks of it: "These principles are so interwoven with every part of our jurisprudence that to attempt to eradicate them would be to destroy the whole. They are massy stones worked into the foundation of our legal edifice." (Dunwoodie v. Read, 3 Serg. & R. 447.)

Though lands in the United States are held by allodial tenure, there are three points where the feudal system is a vital force with us: (1) The citizen owner owes fealty to the government, which occupies the relation as to him which the lord paramount occupied as to the feudal tenant; (2) all land is subject to escheat; and (3) it may be taken at any time for the public use under eminent domain.

In the United States all lands were held by the government, which took the place of the lord paramount, and all land titles are to be deduced from the British crown or the ante-revolutionary governments, and since the independence of the United States from the federal or state government.

In the limited time to treat a subject before this Association, the writer foresaw that it would be idle to attempt a sketch even of the general law of this subject.

It is learning familiar to the profession, and there is nothing very new or pronounced in its recent evolution. He has concluded it would serve a better purpose to devote the remainder of his paper to a consideration of the law in our own state and territory.

STATUTE LAW IN THE TERRITORY.

The first legislature of the territory gave us the forcible entry and detainer act, which was continued in force during the territorial existence.

It provided for a proceeding before a justice of the peace for possession where the landlord set out his right by affidavit, whereupon the justice issued his notice to the tenant to appear within time to be fixed by the justice, either party might demand a jury, and six men were summoned, and the jury of six determined

the issue of guilty or not guilty, of the forcible entry or detainer complained of.

If guilty, the justice issued his writ of restitution and the plaintiff was put into possession; if rent was due, the amount might be adjudged and collected in that proceeding.

Attention of the pioneer lawyers of the territory, that they may throw any light on the subject, is called to the fact that this and other laws seemed to have been reenacted again and again by subsequent legislatures without change; at least, they appear as new laws in various volumes of territorial statutes. For instance, the forcible entry and detainer law appears in the acts of 1854-55, in 1859 and again in 1861-62, and so on, always appearing as a new act passed at the last session of the legislature.

The legislature of 1865-66, Acts 1865-66, page 78, passed an act under title landlord and tenant, the declared purpose of which was to secure landlords a means to regain possession of premises where tenants fail to pay the rent, and was not intended to interfere with ejectment, forcible entry and detainer.

The landlord must make affidavit before a justice of the peace describing property, terms of lease or circumstances of the occupancy, amount due, and that there is not property subject to execution on the premises sufficient to pay the rent in arrear.

The proceeding was to be before the justice without a jury, and if the judgment was for the plaintiff, a writ of possession was to issue for the premises forthwith to be delivered to the plaintiff, but if the tenant, before the writ was executed, should pay the rent and the costs, that should render the writ of no effect. The justice of the peace could not act if the title was involved.

This act was approved the 16th of January, 1866, was the first act under the title landlord and tenant, was a departure from the forcible entry and detainer act in that it eliminated the jury, seems not to have been satisfactory to the old settler, and was repealed at the next session of the legislature, i. e., 1866-67, 4 Laws of Washington, page 100.

The same legislature of 1866-67 passed the landlord and tenant act, Laws of Washington, vol. 4, page 100: (1) Abolishing tenancy from year to year. (2) That tenancy for an indefinite time with monthly or periodic rent reserved shall be construed to be tenancy

from month to month or from period to period, and may be terminated by written notice of thirty days given by either party to the other. (3) That the tenancy shall be terminated at the end of the time specified in the lease. (4) That if the rent is not paid by ten days' notice, the tenancy shall be forfeited, provided, the rent shall not be paid within the ten days the notice has to run. (5) That he is a tenant by sufferance who gets possession without the consent of the owner, that he shall pay a reasonable rent, and must surrender on demand, which demand terminates the tenancy. (6) When the tenant fails or refuses to surrender at the termination of the tenancy, either by the termination of the lease, or by forfeiture, the landlord may proceed by forcible entry and detainer to recover possession, and may therein recover rent.

This law has since been continued in force and is now to be found in sections 2792 to 2801, both inclusive, Second Code of Washington.

Section 550, Second Code of Washington, which was a part of the Laws of 1881, provides that where the tenant on agricultural lands holds over for more than sixty days after the expiration of the lease, he is to be held for another year, presumably on the same terms, after the sixty days have run, neither party can take advantage of the previous termination of the lease according to its terms.

In other words, the statute raises the conclusive presumption against both the parties, that there has been a re-leasing for another year according to the terms of the previous lease.

This is understood to be the construction the best courts have given to these acts of the parties.

Nothing has been found in our local law to indicate that the common law remedy of distress was ever in force in this state or territory, save that the act on landlord and tenant passed by the legislature of 1865-66, and cited supra, authorized the landlord to invoke the remedy therein provided only when there was not property on the premises sufficient to pay the rent. The deduction is a fair one, that where there was such property on the premises, then the landlord was remitted to his remedy at common law.

The foregoing summarizes the statute law during the territory.