Mr. Stookey, chairman of the committee appointed to canvass the returns for commissioners in the Western and Eastern Divisions, made the following report: "We, the undersigned judges appointed to canvass the vote of the Eastern Division, and the Western Division, of the State Bar of the State of Idaho for commissioners for said divisions hereby report and certify that we duly canvassed the votes of said respective divisions with the following results, to-wit: "Eastern Division: A total of forty-three votes were cast and two were rejected. The candidates received the respective number of votes as follows: "A. L. Merrill, having received a majority of the votes cast, was declared to be elected. "Western Division: Total of fifty-eight votes were cast and four rejected. The candidates received the respective number of votes as follows: "Frank Martin, having received a majority of the votes cast, was declared elected. Dated at Lewiston, this 3rd day of September, 1925. JAY M. PARRISH, P. E. STOOKEY, RICHARD H. JOHNSON, Judges. "We, the undersigned judges, appointed to canvass the vote of the Eastern Division and the Western Division of the State Bar of the State of Idaho for commissioners for said divisions, respectively, hereby report and certify that we have duly canvassed the votes cast in each of said divisions and that the following candidates, having received a majority of the votes cast, were declared to be elected, to-wit: "Eastern Division, A. L. Merrill; Western Division, Frank Martin. Dated at Lewiston, Idaho, September 3, 1925. JAY M. PARRISH P. E. STOOKEY Judges. Frank Martin, newly elected commissioner, was escorted to the platform and made a brief address saying: "Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Bar Association: I am not going to detain you with any remarks at the present time. I hope, however, that I will be able to be of service to the Bar of the state and I wish to say to you that I deem it an honor to be chosen by members of the Bar of my division to serve on this commission and to help in advancing the interests of the Bar which, I hope, will advance the interests of the state." Chairman Leeper appointed the following members to serve on the resolutions committee: Richard H. Johnson, Robert McNair Davis and A. H. Connor. He suggested that all resolutions be handed to this committee, and that a resolution concerning the College of Law, University of Idaho, and a resolution concerning the investigation of crime, mentioned by the mayor in his address of welcome, should be presented to this committee. Mr. Leeper stated that during the last two years he has been gathering statistics concerning juvenile delinquencies in Idaho, and that covering a period of ten years, he had concluded that delinquencies have doubled in the last five years; that in the five years immediately after 1919, there were six thousand cases. He considered the matter one that should interest members of the Bar and stated that he would go into the matter fully later if time permitted. A letter from Jess Hawley, chairman of a committee appointed to make a report for the meeting of the Western Division held at Boise, was read. "Hon. John C. Rice, President Idaho State Bar. Sept. 1, 1925. "The committee which you appointed at the annual meeting of the Western Division of the Idaho State Bar has considered the drafting of a resolution respecting the form and substance of Rule 26 and related rules, and herewith submit the same. "Mr. Haga and myself are in thorough accord in making the report. Mr. Paine, who was on the committee, was unable to attend our latest sessions, but with the exception of Rule 26A suggested in our report, we believe he is in hearty accord with the report. As to that rule, it not having been submitted to him, we are not authorized to note his approval. "It is much regretted by the members of the committee that neither of them can attend the State Bar meeting at Lewiston and present an adequate explanation and discussion of the question as studied by them." Respectfully yours, JESS HAWLEY, Chairman of Committee. REPORT OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO SUGGEST OF THE IDAHO STATE SUPREME COURT. Hon. John C. Rice, Pres., Idaho State Bar. The committee appointed by you at the meeting of the Western Division of the Idaho State Bar, to draft a resolution respecting the form and substance of rule 26 and related rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, does conclude and report as follows: 1. The dismissal of an appeal for neglect of counsel to file a transcript within the time prescribed by the rules of the Supreme Court is to be condemned as an arbitrary denial of justice in practically every instance. Litigants should not be penalized because of choice of counsel. The neglect or default of counsel should not destroy the opportunity of an appealing litigant to have his case reviewed and the injustice or errors which he believes have resulted in adverse decision in the lower court corrected or at least examined by the court of final decision. 2. Under the present method of noting the fact of perfection of an appeal, many cases fail to be given priority upon the calendar of the Supreme Court. It should therefore be adopted as the practice hereafter that immediately upon the perfecting of an appeal, note thereof should be made and the case put on the calendar of the Supreme Court. The present system considers only, in fixing the place of the case upon the Supreme Court calendar, the date the transcript of appeal is filed with the Supreme Court. We have embodied in paragraph 26A our thought on this particular subject. 3. We respectfully recommend that a suitable resolution be adopted by the Idaho State Bar suggesting the adoption by the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho of the amendments to the Supreme Court Rules, hereunto attached, as rules 26 to 30, inclusive. Respectfully submitted, JESS HAWLEY Rule 26. Filing and Service of Transcript. In civil cases where an appeal is perfected, typewritten transcripts of the record (showing the date of filing the notice and undertaking on appeal) must be served upon the adverse party and filed in this Court within thirty days after the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken shall have completed and certified to the transcript as specified in C. S. Sec. 7166, and if a printed transcript be filed, it must be certified to be correct by the attorneys of the respective parties or by the clerk. Written evidence of the service of the transcript upon the adverse party shall be filed therewith. In criminal cases the record upon appeal shall be filed within the time specified in C. S. Sec. 9077. Rule 26A. The Clerk of the District Court shall within ten days after the filing of the praecipe and the deposit of appellant's costs on appeal as required by Section 7166, C. S., deposit with the Clerk of the Supreme Court the amount so paid by appellant for costs on appeal and shall at the same time file with the Clerk of the Supreme Court a certificate stating the title of the cause, by whom the appeal was taken, the date of filing the notice of appeal and undertaking and the date when the deposit of the costs on appeal was made by appellant and thereupon the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall place the case on the calendar of the Court. Rule 27. Compliance Enforced. A strict compliance with the rules concerning preparation of transcripts will be exacted of the appellant in all cases by the court whether objection be made by the opposite party or not; and for any violation or neglect in these respects which are found to obstruct the examination of the record, the court may order the offending party to pay the costs of a new or an amended transcript or any part thereof unless the matter objected to is inserted by order of the court or judge below. Rule 28. Extension of time to file Transcript. Upon good cause shown by affidavit, or upon stipulation of the parties that good cause exists therefor, filed with the Clerk, the time limit in which a transcript may be served and filed, as set forth in rule 26, may be extended by an order of the court or justice thereof. Rule 29. Penalty Imposed. If the transcript of record is not filed within the time prescribed by rules 26 and 28, through the neglect or failure of appellant's counsel, the appeal shall not be dismissed, but the court may, in its discretion, require the appellant's counsel to pay the costs or expenses actually and necessarily occasioned to the opposite party by such failure or neglect, and may, in its discretion, also impose upon such counsel a penalty of not to exceed $100.00. If the failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed in said rules is attributable to the neglect of the appellant, the appeal may be dismissed. Five days' notice of motion to penalize counsel or to dismiss under this rule accompanied by copies of all moving papers shall be served upon the adverse party or parties. Rule 30. On such motion there shall be presented the certificate of the clerk below, under the seal of the court, certifying the amount or character of the judgment, the date of its rendition, the fact and date of the filing of the notice of appeal, the fact and the date of filing the undertaking on appeal, the fact and time of the settlement of the statement, or reporter's transcript, if there be one; and in the case of typewritten transcripts, the fact and date of the completion and certification of the transcript by the Clerk below. The report was referred to the resolutions committee. O. H. Oversmith, of Moscow, stated that he would like to have the resolutions committee look into an incongruity in the law concerning the publication of summons and service of summons outside the state when there are known and unknown parties to an action, the former, under the 1925 act, requiring an order of the clerk, while the latter requires an order of a judge. F. E. Butler, of Lewiston, agreed with Mr. Oversmith and suggested that a standing legislative committee of the Bar be appointed, to which all suggested changes in code procedure should be submitted for a stated period of time before the convening of the state legislature. Chairman Leeper requested that Mr. Butler's suggestion be reduced to writing and submitted to the committee. He stated that the commission favored a standing legislative committee. On account of the members of the Bar Commission meeting at this time, Chairman Leeper called upon Judge Miles S. Johnson, of Lewiston, to preside during the rest of the afternoon session. Judge Johnson introduced E. V. Kuykendall, Superior Judge of the State of Washington, who addressed the meeting on the subject of "The Regulation of Motor Vehicle Traffic by the State." THE REGULATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC BY THE STATE Remarks before the Idaho State Bar Association, September 3, 1925, at Lewiston, Idaho. "In addressing you upon this subject, assigned to me by your committee, I will limit my discussion to the regulation of stages and trucks engaged in the transportation of persons and property for compensation over public highways. The present Idaho statute is not, strictly speaking, of a regulatory character. It apparently has but two objects: The protection of the public through liability and property damage insurance, on the part of auto transportation companies, and the collection of revenue for highway purposes. While I have no first hand knowledge of the manner in which the law has operated, my impression would be that the exaction of five per cent of the gross income, would be very difficult of enforcement, and in many instances would seriously cripple or destroy the operating company. This feature will be dealt with more fully later. The requirement that all companies procure liability and property damage insurance, is in harmony with legislation in many other states, though there should be more flexibility in the law so that small operators could be permitted to obtain a smaller policy or bond, or even be exempted entirely in certain instances, where the requirement would otherwise destroy the operation. Your present statute applies to all operators including those who handle an occasional passenger or load of freight, while most statutes apply only to auto transportation companies operating between fixed termini or over a regular route. That you may not regard me as a self-appointed critic from an outside state, it is but fair to say that your representative who requested me to speak to you on this topic, suggested that I discuss the Idaho statute, and common carrier motor vehicle regulation in general, · from the standpoint of my experience of nearly six years as the head of the Public Service Commission, and its successor, the Department of Public Works of Washington. That department was charged with the duty of administering the Washington statute regulating auto transportation companies which became effective in June, 1921. Our Washington law was not written by such department, and is by no means perfect, though the department succeeded to some extent in shaping the statute, and in eliminating some objectionable features, and procuring later amendments. Without claiming personal credit for results, I believe it is safe to say that there are few if any states in the union where stage and truck regulation is more efficient and satisfactory than in the state of Washington. I believe there is no state with the exception of California which has a more extensive stage and truck system. My travel and observation in many states has convinced me that Washington, speaking generally, has the best equipment, and the most efficient operation in stage and truck service of any state in the union. I am not claiming that these results have been caused by the method of regulation employed, but it is evident that our laws and their administration have at least not prevented this somewhat remarkable development. Since the state of Idaho has not yet embarked upon the real task of regulating common carrier auto transportation, I will state what my experience has suggested as the fundamental features of a proper regulatory law, and the reasons therefor, in the hope of assisting if possible in the ultimate formulation of a suitable regulatory law. In most jurisdictions exercising regulatory powers over auto transportation companies, the administration of the law is lodged in the Utility Commission or other regulatory body of the state by whatever name it may be known. This is as it should be. No other agency of the state is so well equipped by organization and experience to administer the regulation. The principles underlying the regulation of auto transportation for hire are the same as those pertaining to any other common carrier service, such as railroads, steam boats and street cars with which the Utility Commission is dealing. Furthermore there should be coordination of all the branches of transportation, and this can best be obtained by their regulation through the same agency. Furthermore the engineers, rate experts, accountants and inspectors of the state regulatory body regularly employed can carry on the work pertaining to auto transportation, while any other state official or department would be required to build up a new organization with much greater expense to the tax payers and the utilities involved. |