mittee. The fact that the members would be appointed for four years, coupled with the fact that at all times after the first year at least five members of the committee would have had over one year's experience on the committee would tend to secure some continuity of policy, and would greatly increase the efficiency of the committee. The fact that the proposed committee would consist of a due proportion of judicial and non-judicial members would secure a consideration of suggested procedural changes from different view points. The advantage to be derived from this arrangement is obvious.

5. At the annual meeting held last summer a motion was carried referring to this committee for appropriate action certain suggestions concerning civil and criminal procedure (see p. 75 of report). These suggestions have been considered.

The Act of 1913 conferring upon the Supreme Court the power to make and alter rules of procedure gives Colorado an advantage not enjoyed by many states. Certain fundamental principles should control changes in procedure.

(1) Changes, so far as practicable, should take the form of elimination or alteration of existing rules, rather than the addition of new ones. New York started in 1848 with a code of 391 sections; by 1911 it had grown to 3,384 sections, and was then so cumbersome that so much time was spent in attempting to master the intricacies of procedure that the lawyer had little time left to devote to the object and purpose of the law, the administration of justice.

(2) The tendency should be to provide only necessary fundamental rules, omitting minute details.

(3) The tendency should be to enlarge rather than curtail the discretion of the trial court.

(4)

cedure.

There should be a marked tendency to simplify pro

(5) Substance should be of primary importance, and form should be a subordinate consideration.

Courts are prone to be unduly technical in construing the rules of procedure. The courts themselves, by interpreting the

Code of Civil Procedure liberally and in conformity with its spirit, may do away with some of the evils that beset our system. Section 84 provides as follows:

The court shall in every stage of an action disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.

That provision is practically made a part of every section of the Code, and should be constantly borne in mind by the courts, and given full force and effect.

In considering procedural reform it is well to remember that all change is not necessarily improvement, and that it is well to avoid, on the one hand, that extreme radicalism that accepts and would crystallize into law every experimental fad and fancy, and, on the other hand, that ultra-conservatism that tends to apathy and stagnation.

Our Code of Civil Procedure is a good Code. While we do not assert that either that Code or the prevailing criminal procedure is incapable of improvement, a majority of the committee do not feel justified in recommending the adoption of the suggestions concerning civil and criminal procedure referred to at page 75 of the Annual Report for 1923.

June 28, 1924.

CHARLES C. BUTLER,
Chairman

A. W. MCHENDRIE,

J. W. PRESTON,

JOHN CAMPBELL,

C. C. DORSEY,

HARRY N. HAYNES.

MINORITY REPORT

A minority of this Committee believes that, at the present time, it should limit its work almost if not entirely to such lines of endeavor as will tend to procure the functioning of the Supreme Court as the sole rule making power, as was intended by the Act of 1913 passed at the instance of the Law Reform and Executive Committees of this Association; that the efforts of this Committee. should be principally directed toward trying to induce the Supreme Court to appoint a committee composed of appellate and trial judges and trial lawyers to assist the Court in the matter of judicial procedure in a manner similar to that in which the Law and Bar Committees of that Court assist it in the matter of admissions to the Bar.

This view is based on the theory that the Court could better perform the duties required of it under the Act of 1913 with the aid of such a committee and upon the experience that the Court has apparently been able to give very little time to this matter during the past ten years, never yet having given any attention to criminal procedure, and the legislature having been appealed to by the Bar to enact legislation regarding even civil procedure during the past few years.

E. L. REGENNITTER.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL DEVELOPMENT

The by-laws of this Association, in defining the duties of the Committee on Legal Development, provide that the Committee "shall make an appropriate report to the association at its annual meeting, with particular reference to any statutory changes in the state, of public interest, and any needed changes suggested by judicial decisions during the year."

As there has been no session of the General Assembly since our last meeting, there is nothing to report in the way of statutory changes in, or additions to, the laws of this state. Nor has the Committee any amendments to the statutes to suggest which seem advisable on account of any decision of our Supreme Court during the past year.

Considering the by-law of this Association just quoted, and prescribing the duties of this Committee, this report might well stop at this point. The Committee, however, believes it important to call your attention to certain matters occurring in Congress at its last session, some of which if not strictly in the line of legal development must still be of interest to this meeting.

Congress at its last session, so far as legislation is concerned, spent practically all its valuable time in considering a Revenue Bill, a Soldiers' Bonus Bill, and an Immigration Bill. With the substance of these acts you are all more or less familiar. Two of these measures seem to have been regarded by all of our representatives in Washington as having an important bearing on their political future, with the result that a large part of the time of Congress was consumed in their consideration. Practically all the remainder of the time seems to have been devoted by Congress to various investigations, and in some cases to the investigation of investigators. This Committee need not say to you that the time so spent did not tend appreciably to legal development.

The impression gathered from looking through that interesting publication known as The Congressional Record, is that the chief efforts of most of our representatives in Congress at the last

session seem to have been devoted to the preparation of speeches showing how actively they have been on the Congressional job, and why the particular statesman should be continued in office for another term.

For the purpose, however, of giving some idea of the attention paid by Congress at its last session to important legislation affecting legal development, the Committee believes it to be its duty, as well as to be of interest to you, to call your attention to an unsuccessful attempt made at that session to change the statutes with reference to procedure in Federal Courts.

THE CARAWAY BILL

Senator Caraway, of Arkansas, at the last session of Congress introduced in the Senate a bill entitled "A Bill to amend the practice and proceedings in Federal Courts, and for other purposes." Substantially the same bill was at the same time introduced into the House by Representative McKeown of the same state. Strange as it may seem, this important bill was reported favorably and passed in the Senate without a roll call. It was also reported favorably by the House Judiciary Committee without any public hearing or consideration. The bill was in this condition, having advanced, as you will note, very far toward becoming a law, before the bar of the country had any knowledge of the situation. As originally reported this bill made it reversible error for a Federal judge in any jury case in that court "to express his opinion as to the credibility of witnesses or the weight or value of the evidence." In the Senate the words "or value" were eliminated. In the House Bill it was provided that the judge, in any case pending in a Federal court, "shall not express his opinion as to the credibility of witnesses or weight of testimony involved in the issue." This bill also sought to require the charge in the Federal court to be reduced to writing, and further to be delivered to the jury before arguments of counsel on either side. The Standing Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform of the American Bar Association has denounced this bill "as a part