Your Committee on Resolutions begs to report as follows: Four matters had been submitted up to noon of this day to the Committee for its consideration

Rupp, Otto B.

English

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)

Washington Law Review Volume 24 Number 4 Annual Meeting of the Washington State Bar Association 11-1-1949 Report of Resolutions Committee Otto B. Rupp Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Recommended Citation Otto B. Rupp, State Bar Journal, Report of Resolutions Committee, 24 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J. 383 (1949). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol24/iss4/10 This State Bar Journal is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact cnyberg@uw.edu. ANNUAL MEETINGREPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE CODEBY VoN TANNRMr. President, members of the Bar Association, I am presentingtins report at the request of Mr. Anderson, the chairman of the com-mittee. The report has been published in the State Bar News andI will assume that you have read it.The effort to obtain a codification of the statute law of this statestarted in 1941, and after several years, during which a numberingsystem and a title arrangement was formulated, in 1947 the textwas produced just prior to the meeting of the 1947 Legislature.The Committee of the Bar Association, the Legislative Committeeof the Association, and a majority of the compilers agreed that itwasn't fit for enactment into the law. The Committee was continuedfor two years. During 1948 a number of lawyers obtained copies ofthe compilation or copies of certain titles and it was, after consider-able investigation, concluded by the Bar Committee that the so-called Legislative Code was not yet in shape to justify passage.The Committee appeared before the Judiciary Committees of theLegislature and finally a bill was passed appropriating some moneyfor further work, which the Governor vetoed. It was assumed thatBancroft-Whitney would then be free to go ahead with the publi-cation of a compiled code. However, the Legislative Council hasset aside a small sum of money and have advised Bancroft-Whitneythat they are going to do some more work on the Code, and that'swhere the matter stands. If there is anyone who has any questions,I would be glad to try to answer them.RPORT OF RESOLUTIONS COmmiTTEEBY OTTO B. RuppYour Committee on Resolutions begs to report as follows: Fourmatters had been submitted up to noon of this day to the Com-mittee for its consideration.The first one relates to the picketing of courts, judges, jurors,witnesses, or court officers. At a recent meeting of the Board ofGovernors of the American Bar Association, President Holman wasauthorized to appoint a committee to support passage of two pro-STATE BAR JOURNALposed bills, H.R. 5647 and S. 1681. The Bar Association Committeefiled reports approving such legislation and the members of theCommittee appeared before the Joint Committee of the House andthe Senate and testified in favor of the bill.The Senate and House Judiciary Committee have reported favor-ably upon this legislation. The Senate Bill, as amended by the Sen-ate Judiciary Committee, is, so far as is material, as follows:Whoever with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or im-peding the admnistration of justice or with the intent of influenc-ing any judge, juror, witness or court officer in the discharge ofhis duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a courtof the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupiedby such a judge, witness, juror, or court officer, or with such in-tent uses any sound truck or similar device or resorts to any otherdemonstrations in or near such building or residence shall be finednot more than $5000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exerciseby any court of the United States of the power to punish for con-tempt.In the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is stated thatthe practice of picketing courts is of recent origin and has beenemployed solely in connection with proceedings involving allegedCommunist Party members or Communist sympathizers; that at thetime of the opening of the current trial of the Communist Partyleaders in the federal District Court in New York City the news-papers carried accounts of the picketing conducted by large crowdsoutside the court building; that similar occurences took place atthe federal District Court in Los Angeles last winter during con-tempt proceedings arising out of an investigation of the Commun-ist party activities; that at least in one instance the residence of thejudge has been picketed. That when an argument was being heardin the Los Angeles case in the Court of Appeals in San Francisco,not only was the building picketed, but a sound truck was employedoutside the building and created so much noise that it seriously in-terfered with the ability to hear the proceedings inside the building,requiring the court to dispatch the marshal to put an end to thedisturbance. As the Senate Judiciary Committee stated, the passageof this legislation will prevent interference with the courts by picket-ing crowds and allow persuasion to remain in the hands of those toANNUAL MEETINGwhom it properly belongs, namely, counsel of the parties' choice and,in the place where it belongs, within the courtroom.Your Committee, therefore, is unammously of the opinion that thefollowing resolution should be adopted: "Be it resolved by the Wash-ington State Bar Association that it approves S. 1681 as amendedand urges its speedy enactment and that be it further resolved thata copy of this resolution be sent to our representatives in the Houseand Senate of the United States."There was also submitted to the Committee the following resolu-tion (As this was mentioned a while ago, we might as well have itout.) "Whereas, the several states have always reserved to them-selves fundamental rights over the development of natural resourcesin the adoption and acceptance of the federal Constitution, andwhereas it is proposed to enact federal legislation creating corpora-tions known as River Authorities or River Admimstrations .whichplace the development and control of our natural resources underthe exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government to the exclusionof all enforceable rights and control of the states with respect there-to and contrary to our traditional constitutional system of govern-ment, and whereas such federal corporations if authorized and cre-ated will control the entire local economy of the region affected tothe impairment of and the exclusion of the rights of the individualcitizens thereof,"NOW, THEREFORE, it is resolved by the Washington StateBar Association, convened in Seattle, Washington, as follows: Thatthe underlying principles of the River Authority Plan of control anddevelopment of natural resources is destructive of the rights of theStates involved, and is inmical to the best interests of the inhabit-ants thereof.That federal legislation creating such River Authority, whichexcludes enforceable state rights over its natural resources and theproperty rights of its citizens - m whatever language it may becouched-is unalterably objectionable and is hereby opposed. Thatcopies of this resolution be sent to the Governor of the state ofWashington and to the members of our Congressional delegation."The third proposition is that of the Washington State MedicalAssociation. They submitted to us as a resolution relative to thecompulsory Health Insurance Bill now pending in Congress.That resolution, however, contains statements the accuracy or in-STATE BAR JOURNALaccuracy of which your committee is unable to determine. For m-stance, it is said that all compulsory health insurance enactments any-where in the world resulted in the decline of national health. I don'tknow whether that is true or not. However, the Committee is op-posed to any form of compulsory health insurance to be adnmns-tered by the federal government, and it suggests to this Associa-tion the approval of the following resolution."Be it resolved by the Washington Bar Association that it op-poses the compulsory health insurance measure now pending beforethe Congress of the United States or any form of compulsory healthinsurance to be administered by the federal government, and be itfurther resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to each sen-ator and representative of the State of Washington."The Grays Harbor County Bar Association submitted to yourCommittee a formal resolution requesting the State Bar Associa-tion to draft legislation to be presented to the state Legislature atits next session which legislation would provide a full-time paidworker under the jurisdiction and control of the Superior Courtjudge presiding over the family court, as an extension of the servicesrendered by such family court and whose duty and responsibilityshould be to assist the Court in a proper enforcement of support-money judgments for minor children and an alimony judgment forformer wives in both divorce and separation cases.Your Committee does not favor the passage of such a resolutionand is opposed to the enactment of the legislation proposed by theGrays Harbor County Bar Association. Now, that is the report ofthe Committee, signed by all of the members of the committee withthe exception of Mr. Hamlin of Spokane, whose wife is ill and whowas unable to be here at the time the report was formally drafted.Since 11.30 this morning there have been some additional reso-lutions presented to the Committee-one presented by Mr. Henry,the title of which is a resolution recommending the passage of legis-lation designed to safeguard the rights of persons compelled to tes-tify before legislative fact-finding committees and persons who aredefamed by witnesses who appear before such committees. I maysay that there is some language in that resolution with which I per-sonally would agree and with which I think the other members ofthe committee would agree. Personally, I am opposed to this thingof dragging a man before a committee, never permitting him to askANNUAL MEETINGany witness a question, never giving him the benefit of any counsel.But this resolution goes far beyond any such enunciation of prm-ciple of that character and the committee therefore takes no actionon that resolution.Another resolution, submitted about 2.30 today, is one which Ithink might be germane for action on the part of this Association.It states in substance that, "The Board of Governors of the Wash-ington State Bar Association shall, within mnety days from the datehereof, select and employ one or more executive assistants whoseduty shall be to supervise, manage and operate the State Bar Asso-ciation under the direction of the Board of Governors."Now, obviously, that is not the entire resolution, but that is thesubstance of it. Now, obviously, a resolution submitted at halfpast two in the afternoon, unless it involves no controversy of anykind, is not the kind of a resolution which this Committee, all ofwhom are gray-haired, would adopt or recommend for adoption orrejection.There is another resolution proposed by the Legislative Com-mittee, but that deals with this revised Code. I take it that theaction of tins convention relative to the revised Code, or what youhave heard about the revised Code, is enough without any resolu-tion. That being the duty of a special committee, the Committeeon resolutions takes no action with reference thereto.I move, therefore, Mr. President, if you please, the adoption ofthe Committee's Report.UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAWBy GEORGE E. MATHIEUThe matter of practice of law by laymen is the constant concern,not only of the Washington State Bar Association, but of 180,000lawyers in the United States. The Bar is in reality a partiallyself-policing and self-regulating body which, together with the courts,establishes and seeks to maintain the standards for admission topractice and norms of ethical conduct. Through centuries of exper-ience it has been found that msistence upon- such standards of moraland legal attainments is essential to the administration of justiceand is in the public interest.

Report of Resolutions Committee

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2823&context=wlr

Report of Resolutions Committee

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UW Law Digital Commons (University of Washington)