in two cases; one dismissed for failure of complainant to give information; in one, request was made of complainant for further data; one referred to a prosecuting committee for investigation, and one withheld for further investigation by a Commissioner. A Legislation Committee was appointed to receive suggestions from members of the Bar relative to needed corrections, changes in or additions to, legislation; the members appointed were B. W. Oppenheim, Boise, Chairman; Noel B. Martin, Lewiston; Clency St. Clair, Idaho Falls; B. S. Varian, Weiser; and James R. Bothwell, Twin Falls. A meeting was held at Moscow, January 15, 1926, to discuss with the faculty of the College of Law, University of Idaho, co-operation of the Bar and College, examinations and to attend classes; the Board attended a banquet tendered by the Law Association of the College. Two applications for admission were considered, and approved, the necessary showings required at a previous meeting having been made. The applications of four District Court admittees were approved and their admission recommended. Three complaints received attention—one, dismissed because it appeared a foreign, and not the local, attorney was responsible; one deferred, and one referred for prosecution. The status of attorneys delinquent on license payments was considered. At Boise on April 23, 1926, the Board met, again considered delinquencies in payment of license fees; ordered notices sent to all attorneys of the time within which to pay 1926 license fees; fixed time and place of next examination and appointed the necessary committees; passed upon 15 applications for admission, rejecting two for insufficient legal education; and, in addition to discussion of arrangement for the General Bar, and Division meetings, gave attention to eleven complaints, dismissing three because no cause of action, withholding action on three for further investigation, appointing a Prosecuting Committee to institute proceedings in one; referring one relating to practice by one not admitted for investigation, withholding action at request of complainant in one, and in two, after examination of the record and recommendation of Investigation Committee, entering judgments of disbarment. In one of the latter, involving Otis M. Van Tassel, formerly of St. Anthony, the Supreme Court has approved the judgment of the Board and entered final order of disbarment, in the other, review is now pending before the Supreme Court. question of ethics submitted to the Board was passed upon. A Again at Boise, June 25, 1926, the Board met, arranged for notices of license fees, and of the election in the Northern Division and of the Division and General Bar meetings. Consideration was given to a petition of the Prosecuting Attorney for Ada County requesting investigation of conduct of officers and attorneys in the conduct of the case of State vs. Whitney; the Board declined to investigate others than the attorneys and for the latter purpose appointed a special committee which has held hearings and will report to the Board meeting held at this time. Six complaints were considered; one being a report relative to practice by an unlicensed person; one relative to petition for review of a judgment of disbarment; in three Prosecuting Committees were directed to report the status of proceedings; in one the attorney could not be located; and in one, prosecuting and investigation committees were appointed; and directed to proceed with trial. A committee on By-Laws for the Bar and changes in the Organization Act was appointed and directed to report at this meeting. Three delegates were appointed to the meeting of the American Bar Association-study was given the desirability for a Committee of the Bar to investigate Crime conditions and criminal statutes in Idaho, and the program for this meeting of the Bar formulated. Examination papers of fifteen applications were graded and eleven recommended, four rejected. The meetings of the Board usually consume two or three days, and late into the nights, especially when examination papers are to be graded. In addition to the grading by each member of the Examining Committees, each paper is independently graded by each Commissioner and the secretary. As you know, neither the Commissioner nor examining committeemen receive any compensation. The response of busy members of the Bar to the call of the Board to act in formulating questions, conducting examinations, and grading papers, and to serve upon Prosecuting and Investigation committees has been uncomplaining and enthusiastic, and merits the commendation of the Bar and public. The Board requests me to express thanks to each member of such committees for his services. The condition of the appropriation and the expenditures since the report at the Lewiston meeting are: Balance on hand in appropriation, Aug. 28, 1925. $5,202.13 Balance on hand in appropriation July 10, 1926. 6,114.95 Membership July 1, 1926, being those whose 1925 license fees were paid and who were entitled to practice law in Idaho on that date and judges: Northern Division 138 Delinquencies on July 1, 1926, for 1925 or prior years. Those delinquent for years prior to 1925 but paid for 1925 (10) are included in above membership number: PRESIDENT LEEPER: What do you wish to do with the Secretary's Report, gentlemen? MR. CROWLEY: I move, Mr. President, that the report of the Secretary be adopted. GENERAL McDOUGAL: I second the motion, Mr. President. PRESIDENT LEEPER: It has been moved and seconded that the Report of the Secretary be accepted. All in favor will signify by saying "Aye"; contrary, the same. The motion is carried and the report is adopted. Now, on the Resolutions Committee, I will appoint the following: Dean Robert McNair Davis, Chairman; H. B. Thompson, of Pocatello; E. A. Walters, of Twin Falls. And on the Elections Committee, I will appoint: C. W. Pomeroy, of Pocatello, Chairman; Turner K. Hackman, of Twin Falls; Hugh A. Baker, of Rupert. The Elections Committee meets at noon, in this building. The Resolutions Committee can meet at the convenience of the chairman. Any resolution any member wishes to submit should be handed to Dean Davis. Ladies and Gentlemen: I know of no man in the State of Idaho who has been more intimately connected, not only with the practice of law, from the standpoint of a practicing attorney, but also as a member of the Supreme Court for many years, and as President of the Bar Association for many years, and as representative of this association for many years, we all know Judge James F. Ailshie, and it is now with great pleasure I call on him to address you on the subject of Uniform State Laws. Judge Ailshie. JUDGE AILSHIE: Mr. President. PRESIDENT LEEPER: Judge Ailshie. JUDGE AILSHIE: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Idaho Bar: I notice that the program assigns forty minutes to the remarks that I am supposed to make, and I suppose that I may safely rely upon your feelings as to the length of my remarks. The Supreme Court is always kind enough to say to members of the Bar when they are presenting a case, "You are allowed forty minutes to argue the case, but you are not compelled to take that much time." (Laughter.) I have been requested to discuss before you the Conference of Commissioners on the Uniform State Laws, and the purposes and objects of that Conference. I suppose that I may safely assume there are a number of attorneys in the act of practicing law who are wholly unfamiliar with that conference, or how it is constituted, or its general working, and that assumption is made, of course, upon the theory that you are busy men, and that you do not pay attention, or a great deal of attention, at least, to those matters. The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws was suggested in 1889 by the American Bar Association appointing a committee. The committee was designated a "committee on Uniform State Laws." That committee made investigations and reports to the American Bar Association, and in 1890 the State of New York passed an act authorizing the appointment of commissioners to investigate the subject of the creation of a commission,-a national commission on Uniform State Laws and report to the legislature of the state. That commission started upon its work, and as a result, the first commission met in 1892. That commission represented nine states. From that time the admissions to the conference increased from year to year until in 1912 the commission was represented, or had representatives from every state, and, I believe, the outlying possessions such as Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, and I think at every meeting since that time practically every state has been represented. Sometimes there would be one or two states not represented. Unfortunately, this year the states of Oregon and Montana were not represented at the sessions of the commission. The commission meets immediately preceding the meeting of the American Bar Association, and is generally in session about eight days. The conference is not a committee of the American Bar Association, and the American Bar Association has no control over the conference. The conference, as you may know, is composed of representatives, ordinarily three,-some states have five, and in thirtythree states of the Union those commissioners are appointed under a legislative act. Idaho, as many of you may not be aware, has a statute authorizing the governor to appoint three members of the commission, and that statute also provides that the expenses of the commission shall be paid for attending the conference, but, unfortunately for those of us who have ever attended, the legislature never made any appropriation for that purpose, and so the attendance has been at the expense of the commissioners. The other states that do not make their appointments under legislative act, are authorized by the constitution which was adopted by the commission, to appoint representatives by the Governor, or by the State Bar Association, in the event that the governor has no general appointive power to appoint members of the commission, so that where the commissioners are not appointed under legislative act, then if the governor has the general appointive power to appoint commissioners, he appointed the commissioners, and upon their being certified they are admitted to the conference with the voting power and right of discussion to debate all subjects. If the governor does not do so, or has not that power, then the State Bar may make the appointment of the commissioners to which the state is entitled. Now, as to the functions of that body, I may suggest their purpose, and they have a constitution under which they work,-is to investigate all suggestions that may be referred to them. There is, in fact, a committee of that association on "scope and plan" to which any question that is submitted for consideration by an appropriate committee is first examined and reported on, and that committee reports whether or not it is a subject, as the constitution says, is desirable and practicable to be worked in with Uniform State Laws. In other words, whether the subject is wanted,-with which the country at large is interested so that it ought to be made uniform, if possible, throughout the states, or whether it is a local question, one in which the public generally is not interested, and it doesn't make any special difference whether they are uniform or not. For example, two subjects were referred to our committee a year ago, one was a uniform sanitary bedding act, and the other was a uniform milk containers act. Well, our committee reported that in our judgment it made no difference whether the sheets were the same length in Idaho as they were in Ohio, for example, or not, and it wouldn't make any difference whether they had the same kind of milk containers in New York as they had in Connecticut, or not, and the two suggestions were dropped as impracticable and unnecessary to be considered. On the other hand, the Uniform Aeronautics Act, for example, was reported some years ago as a practicable and desirable thing, and as you are aware, our legislature adopted the act at the last session. That act was approved by the commission two years ago and was submitted to the last legislature and was adopted. Only one act, I think, has been adopted, and I may say that there have been submitted since the organization of this commission |