world who knows all about taxation. This is perhaps the most difficult subject the minds of civilized men have encountered in organizing their governments, and that fact is proven by the fact that even today, with all the progress that government has made in other respects, we are very far behind in equitable tax laws. And Virginia, with all her public spirit, and all her intelligence, is perhaps as far behind as any other State in the Union. It is a subject about which people naturally and inherently differ. I have never in my life heard of two men who would agree upon any comprehensive scheme of taxation. They may agree on a general line, but one will point out some injustice or difficulty here, and another will find other difficulties there. If more consider the matter another will differ upon the principle itself, and that is the way it goes. I have given the subject as much consideration as I could for the last several years because I have been convinced that we are suffering in this State a very unequal burden from an antiquated and outworn system which ought not to be tolerated in any civilized community. I am going to read a paper I have prepared on this subject because the character of the subject is much that it would be very difficult to carry the figures in my mind. (See paper at end of minutes.) Mr. President: Gentlemen: I am sure you will agree with me that we are under many obligations to Mr. Byrd for his very able paper, and I am sure you will also permit me in your behalf to thank him therefor. The next business is the report of the Committee on Library and Legal Literature. Has that committee any report to make? (No report.) Next is the report from the Committee on Presentments. Is there any report from that committee to be presented? (No report.) Next is the report from the Committee on Grievances. We shall be glad to hear from that committee if it has anything to report? (No report). Next is the report of the Committee on International Arbitration. Has that committee a report? Judge Geo. L. Christian, of Richmond: I have a report which I wish to make in behalf of the chairman, Hon. A. J. Montague, who is absent. (See report at end of minutes.) The President: The next order of business is reports from special committees. Has the Committee on Reduction of Cost of Appeals any report to make? (No report). The next is Committee on Revision of Code. (No report.) Judge L. L. Lewis, of Richmond: In behalf of Mr. Thom, who is absent, I present a letter from him as the report of the Committee, as follows: MR. JOHN B. MINOR, Secretary, Virginia State Bar Association, Hot Springs, Va. My dear Mr. Minor: July 28, 1913. I greatly regret that I will not be able to attend this meeting of the Virginia Bar Association. The situation in respect to the additional Judgeship for the Fourth Circuit is that the bill establishing the additional Judgeship has passed the Senate and is now pending in the House of Representatives. It is being opposed by some of the Republicans, and I assume by some of the Democrats, and will not pass at this special session. This is made certain by the resolutions of the Democrats to consider no such business at this session. Judge Goff has been giving the matter most effective attention, and I feel quite hopeful that the bill will pass both houses and become a law at the next session of Congress. Sincerely yours, ALFRED P. THOM. The President: The next is the report of the Committee on Reform of Judicial Procedure. Is that committee ready to report? Mr. Thomas W. Shelton, of Norfolk: I wish to present the report of the committee. (See report at end of minutes.) Mr. Thomas W. Shelton, of Norfolk: I now wish to offer on behalf of the committee the following resolutions: Resolved, First: That the Supreme Court of Appeals, in pursuance of the authority vested in it by Section 3112 of Pollard's Code, when amended as herein provided, be respectfully requested to prescribe by suitable rules the forms of writs and make general regulations for the practice of all the Courts, both law and equity; and that it will prepare a system of rules of practice and a system of pleadings and the forms of process to be used in all the Courts of this State; Second: That the Virginia State Bar Association, having in view the advantages to be gained by confor mity withthe Federal Equity Practice, respectfully commends the same to the Court's favorable consideration; Third: That the next Legislature of Virginia, in order to carry out the purposes of this report and of this resolution be and it is hereby requested to amend Section 3112 of Pollard's Code in the following particulars, that is to say: insert the words "civil and criminal" after the words "for practice of all the Courts" and insert the words "and put into effect" just after the word "prepared" and just before the words "the Court," and strike out the words "in order to further legislation in the premises" and substitute therefor the words "in order that they may be published in the acts of the current session unless otherwise published by authority of the Court," adding the usual phrase repealing all provisions of the law in conflict therewith or with the rules of practice and procedure that may be adopted by authority hereof. Fourth: That the President of this Association shall forthwith designate a suitable Committee to urge upon the General Assembly the legislation proposed by these resolutions. Mr. Bullitt: I like the idea of leaving this matter to the Supreme Court of Appeals. Of course I have studied the new Federal procedure to some extent but am not thoroughly familiar with it, and have not had sufficient practice under it to know whether I like it or not. It is very a marked change from the present system. Furthermore, these rules, if adopted by the Court of Appeals will not be adopted within a year or two to come, and within that time we will have had more opportunity of seeing the working of this Federal statute and to know whether it is the proper and best thing to do. For that reason I move to strike out that section wherein we are asked to recommend to the Court of Appeals the new Federal Procedure in Equity. Mr. John T. Harris of Harrisonburg: I would like to ask the gentleman if he will not have to learn these rules sooner or later, and why, if obliged to learn them, should not the equity rules in State practice conform as nearly as possible to the Federal rules? Mr. Bullitt: It would be a very good thing if we only had to learn one set of equity rules, provided that is the best set of rules. But if it is a bad set of rules I think it would be better for us to learn two sets, provided we can get a better set for our State litigation. Of course the vast majority of litigation in Virginia will be in the State courts, and I have heard a great deal of discussion about the new Federal Procedure. Mr. Harris: What point has the gentleman heard discussed? Mr. Bullitt: Well, I will name the question of examining witnesses before the court as a serious question, that is, as to whether the new plan will save time and be of benefit to the bar and litigants or not. If some of our circuit judges want to hurry home, as some of them sometimes want to do, it is going to be a very great drawback to the speedy and expeditious settlement of suits. As the practice stands now we can get these equity suits ready in vacation, but under the new procedure we have to bring witnesses before the court, and the court has to sit there perhaps for days and itself hear those witnesses speak. Another thing, Mr. President, when it comes to the trial of a common law case the issues are sharply made on each side, and each side, knows pretty well what the testimony on the other side is going to be. But when it comes to an equity suit, inquiring about a matter extending over months and years, perhaps, and covering family relations and different things of that nature, it seems to me you have a very different situation. When you hear witnesses on one side it may take time and hold up the other side in order to rebut the testimony. You might have to get testimony from California, or from Europe, or Africa, in order to meet and rebut testimony given by witnesses in an equity suit. Under our present system it seems to me we can meet these situations, and that under the proposed system great injustice might be done because one side could not possible foresee what was going to be testified to before the court by witnesses on the opposing side. Mr. George Bryan: Why would not the same injustice apply to common law cases? Mr. Bullitt: Because common law cases involve more sharply defined issues. Mr. George Bryan: Not a bit more than in equity cases. Mr. Bullitt: I do not agree with the gentleman on that. Mr. Harris: How many foreign depositions do you think you have had to take in equity suits during twenty years of practice? Mr. Bullitt: Well, with reference to foreign depositions, I have never had any. I have had to go to California, and to New York, and to Pennsylvania, and to some distant cities. Mr. Harris: Under the new equity rules the deposition of a foreign witness not easily accessible to the trial court may be taken the same as now. So there would not be the slightest |