ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION.

BY E. H. COLEMAN, Secretary-Treasurer.

The Seventh Annual Meeting of the Association was held at Vancouver, B. C., on August 16th and 17th and at Victoria on August 18th. Each year's meeting has witnessed an advance both in attendance and interest and it is gratifying that this year again the report is that the Annual Meeting was the most successful in the history of the Association.

The Council of the Association held the view that it was necessary, if the Association was to be a really Canadian organization and to be of service to the members of the Bar in all parts of the country, that the meetings should not be confined to the most central parts of Canada. It is no secret that some of them viewed the experiment with a little apprehension, more especially since the meeting was fixed for British Columbia in a year of business and financial depression. However, the result proved the wisdom of the policy adopted by the Council. The attendance from the Eastern Provinces exceeded the highest expectations of those in charge of the arrangements, and the meeting stimulated to a high degree the interest and enthusiasm of the British Columbia Bar. The kindly interest and unbounded hospitality of the Judges and members of the Bar on the Pacific Coast will always remain as one of the most pleasant memories of those who were privileged to attend the meeting.

As usual the addresses and papers presented were of a very high order. The presence and inspiring addresses of the Right Hon. Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, of Hon. John W. Davis, the President of the American Bar Association, of M. Henri Aubepin, representing the Bar of Paris, and of the representatives of the Japanese Bar, emphasized the very important work which the Association is doing in developing good feeling between members of the Canadian Bar and the

profession throughout the world. By a happy coincidence, the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association was held at San Francisco during the preceding week, and the Canadian Association was favoured by the presence of some 300 or 400 members of the American Bar Association who came north to attend the meeting.

From the point of view of internal policy of the Association, one of the most important steps was the decision to establish the CANADIAN BAR REVIEW. The Association took this forward step in the faith that a sufficient number of members would assist by taking out Life Memberships, the income from which will be devoted to a special fund to assure the Association against financial loss in the operation of the REVIEW, and encouraged by a munificent donation of $10,000 by the President, Sir James Aikins, the income from which will be devoted to the same end. It is the confident hope of the Council, however, that the members of the Bar generally will accord such support to the CANADIAN BAR REVIEW that this fund will not be required for maintenance purposes and may be used in improving the journal.

The members of the Association were not prepared to accede to the request of Sir James Aikins to be relieved of his office as President, but, in order that he might have assistance in directing the executive work of the Association as a whole, they amended the Constitution by providing for a Vice-President whose activities will not be restricted to a single Province. To fill this office they elected the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, of Montreal, who has since been appointed Chief Justice of the Superior Court at Montreal.

A very important suggestion was made in a letter directed to the President by the Attorney-General of England, who asked whether, in the event of the American Bar Association accepting an invitation to hold their Annual Meeting in London in 1924, the Canadian Bar Association would come over and act as joint hosts with the English Bar. The Attorney-General

intimated that, of course, the thought was that the expense of entertainment in London would be a matter for the English Bar but that the Canadian Bar Association, as representing the Bar of the Dominion most closely connected with the United States Bar, would be officially associated as host. Since this invitation was contingent upon an acceptance by the American Bar Association, the Canadian Bar Association could not do more than acknowledge with thanks the very high compliment implied in the suggestion and defer definite action until the decision of the American Bar Association is known. It is understood that the Executive of the American Bar Association is engaged in canvassing the opinions of their members on the proposal, and may take action at their mid-winter meeting. In the event of an acceptance by the American Bar Association, the Council of the Canadian Bar Association will have to give careful thought to this very important suggestion. It is felt that all the members of the profession in Canada will recognize that, if it is at all practicable, the matter should have favourable consideration.

In future numbers of the REVIEW, I hope to refer in greater detail to various important and interesting reports presented at the meeting.

RECENT DECISIONS.

ENGLISH AND CANADIAN CASES.

Acquisition by Canadian Government of Grand Trunk Railway System-Compensation-Value of Stocks-Physical Assets

-Evidence.

The case of The Grand Trunk Railway Company v. The King was an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the award of a majority of the members of a Board of Arbitration constituted under the provisions of an Act of the Parliament of Canada (10-11 Geo. V., c. 13) to determine the value of the preference and common stocks of the appellant company for the purpose of the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway System by the Dominion Government. The Grand Trunk Railway Company was created in 1852 under a Canadian charter, and its stock, which is fully paid up, is held largely in England. The Board of Arbitration mentioned consisted of Sir Walter Cassels, President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, Sir Thomas White, who was named by the Dominion Government, and the Honourable William H. Taft (now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States), who was appointed. by the appellant company. The Act provided that a unanimous award of the arbitrators should be final, but if otherwise then an appeal from the award, upon any question of law, should lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. During the course of the arbitration certain evidence was offered on behalf of the appellant as to the value of the physical assets of the Grand Trunk Railway system and the lines of subsidiary companies, in Canada and the United States, directly or indirectly controlled by the appellant. By an interlocutory ruling or order of a majority of the Board (Hon. Mr. Taft dissenting) made on the 7th February, 1921, such evidence was rejected as irrelevant. This ruling was adhered to throughout the proceedings by the majority of the Board except as regards a company in the State of Ohio subsidiary to the appellant company, where evidence of the value of physical assets was admitted. After the proceedings on the arbitration had been concluded, the Chairman and Sir Thomas White agreed in an award (September 7th, 1921), whereby it was determined that the stocks in question had no value. Mr. Taft dissented from this award, holding that the appellant was entitled to have the value of the stocks allowed.

to it, and assessing such value at $48,000,000. Notice of appeal from the award, as well as from the interlocutory ruling of 7th February, 1921, was given by the appellant and on December 22nd, 1921, leave to appeal was granted by the Judicial Committee.

The chief question on the appeal was as to whether the ruling of the majority of the Board of Arbitration in excluding evidence of the value of the physical assets was wrong in law. The expression "the value of the physical assets" was used in two different senses in the arguments before the arbitrators and before their lordships. At one time the claim appeared to be that evidence should be admitted of the selling value of the physical assets, that is to say, of the price at which the tangible assets (land, buildings, rails, rolling stock, terminals, etc.), could be sold; at other times it was contended that evidence should be admitted as to what was the "replacement" value of those assets, i.e., the cost at which they could have been reproduced at the moment of transfer, subject (apparently) to allowance for depreciation. The contention that evidence of the selling value of the physical assets was admissible had been rejected unanimously by the arbitrators, and was not seriously pressed before the Judicial Committee. On the question of the admissibility of evidence of "replacement" value, there was disagreement between the arbitrators, Mr. Taft holding that it was admissible, the majority of the Board ruling that it was not. The Judicial Committee sustained the ruling of the majority of the Board of Arbitration on this question. In delivering the judgment of their lordships (Viscount Birkenhead, Viscount Cave, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Parmoor and Lord Carson), Lord Birkenhead said concerning this point:

"Upon the whole matter, their lordships have come to the conclusion that any attempt to estimate future profits by reference to selling value or replacement cost was doomed to failure, and, accordingly, that the arbitrators, to whom the agreement gave wide discretion as to the admission of evidence, were justified in refusing to embark upon an inquiry, which must have occupied many months, and the result of which, when obtained, would have had no legitimate bearing on the question which they had to determine.

"The view here adopted involves no criticism of the American cases (referred to by Mr. Taft), in which evidence. of value has been accepted; for those decisions were given