and the number of pages therein reduced by about 200 even though it was finally decided to retain both the geographical and alphabetical membership lists in the 1927 Report.

All problems involved in the preparation of the Annual Report have not as yet been finally solved and necessarily cannot be, since in the nature of the case certain changes must be made in the form of the report from time to time as the activities of the Association change and expand.

Any detailed description of the works of this committee is unnecessary since it is sufficiently evidenced by examination of the annual report, the supervision of the preparation of which at the present time constitutes the main work of this committee. Needless to say, this committee will at all times entertain and welcome suggestions from members of the Association concerning the form of the annual report with a view to making it as useful as possible to the Association as a whole. I thank you.

Chairman Saner:

Are there any remarks in connection with this report? If there are none, the report will be received and filed.

The next report is on the Division of the Eighth Circuit, of which A. C. Paul, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is Chairman.

Mr. Paul:

The Special Committee on Division of the Eighth Circuit unanimously reports favorably the Newton Bill (H. R. 13567, printed on page 232 of the advance program) with one amendment, and submits the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Newton bill H. R. 13567 providing for a division of the Eighth Judicial Circuit be endorsed and recommended for passage by Congress with the following amendment:

In Section 3, Line 15, of the bill, as printed on page 232 of the advance program, after the word "Denver" insert "in Wichita."

Resolved, Further that the Special Committee be continued with authority in the President of the Association to fill any vacancies in the committee and to appoint additional members, if this seems advisable.

In support of this resolution the committee submits the following statement:

The question of division of the Eighth Judicial Circuit has been under consideration for a considerable period of time both by the Federal Judges and by members of the American Bar Association.

In the program of the Association for the Buffalo meeting there was a bill providing for a division of the circuit that had been prepared by the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform. This bill proposed a division of the circuit substantially on east and west lines, putting into the northern or St. Paul division the states of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming; and into the southern or St. Louis division the states of Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma and New Mexico; transferring the State of Arkansas to the Fifth Circuit and the State of Utah to the Tenth Circuit. This bill was not acceptable to the Circuit Judges, nor, as far as this committee has been able to ascertain, to the members of the bar in any part of the circuit. The lawyers in Arkansas and Utah strenuously objected to being put into other circuits.

A volunteer committee of Eighth Circuit lawyers was arranged at the Buffalo meeting to formulate objections to the bill and also to oppose its passage. This committee presented its objections to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform with the result that the bill was not presented to the Association but was held for further consideration.

Later a bill known as the Thatcher Bill on substantially the same lines was introduced by Congressman Thatcher. Hearings were had on this bill. Many letters were written to the Judiciary Committee of the House opposing the bill, and the chairman of the special committee appeared before the House Judiciary Committee and opposed its passage.

After consultation with the Circuit Judges and a number of the District Judges a bill was prepared, which was introduced by Congressman Newton, and which is generally referred to as the Newton Bill. It provides that the Eighth Circuit shall consist of the states of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Arkansas, with five circuit judges, and that a new circuit be formed to be known as the Tenth Circuit comprising the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico with four circuit judges.

This bill had the approval of the late Judge Walter H. Sanborn, and it has the approval of the six present Circuit Judges. It also has the approval of a large number of the District Judges. It has been endorsed by the Bar Associations of the states of Arkansas, Kansas and Minnesota.

At the special meeting of the Executive Committee of the American Bar Association held in Washington in April the volunteer committee of Eighth Circuit lawyers that had been organized at the Buffalo meeting was made a special committee of the Association.* At the meeting of this committee held yesterday, July 26, nine members of the committee were present and voted in favor of the bill. The other members of the committee have heretofore expressed their approval of the bill so that it may be stated that the bill has the unanimous endorsement of this committee.

At the meeting yesterday there were also present about forty Eighth Circuit lawyers in addition to the members of the committee. The bill was unanimously endorsed by the lawyers present at the meeting.

The committee submits with this report a copy of a letter written by Judge Stone on behalf of himself and the other circuit judges endorsing the bill. It also submits copies of resolutions passed by the Minnesota and Arkansas State Bar Association endorsing the bill.† Letters are on file, also, with the committee endorsing the bill, written by District Judges Faris, Elliott, Amidon, Youmans, Symes, Kennedy, Wade and Phillips.

Circuit Judge Booth, in a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee discussing whether a division of the Circuit is necessary or desirable, said:

As to this question, consideration must be given to the following matters: (1) The great extent of territory embraced in the Eighth Circuit, thirteen states-six states more than in any other circuit; (2) the population of the cricuit, upwards of 18,000,000-more by almost 4,000,000 than the population of the circuit next in size, and 11,000,000 more than the smallest circuit; (3) the ever increasing business of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit, so that at the present time district judges are necessarily called upon to such an extent that approximately one-third of the opinions of the court are prepared by district judges; (4) the great and unjust burden that such a condition of affairs places upon the district judges; (5) the necessarily frequent and complete changes in the personnel of the court, resulting in the impossibility of preserving uniformity of decisions-a matter of the highest importance; (6) the great expenditure of time now incurred by the judges and by the attorneys in traveling to and from the four places of holding court in the circuit.

When the foregoing matters and others of allied nature are given consideration I think the almost unanimous opinion of well-informed men, both within and without the circuit, would be that a division of some kind is imperative.

* See personnel of Committee, p. 25, supra.

†The State Bar Associations of South Dakota and New Mexico have also endorsed the Newton Bill.

The amendment proposed by the committee provides for a term of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit at Wichita. This amendment has been proposed on recommendation of the Kansas members of this Association.

I move the approval of this report and the adoption of the resolution endorsing the Newton Bill.

The motion was duly seconded and carried and the resolution unanimously adopted.

(See report, p. 394, infra.)

The next will be the report of the Special Committee on Uniform Judicial Procedure, Mr. Thomas W. Shelton, of Norfolk, Virginia, being the Chairman of that committee.

Mr. Shelton:

The principle of rules of court has gotten such a firm hold on the Bar of this country that almost every man understands now what is meant by uniform judicial procedure when it is mentioned in a report. It is no longer necessary to take the time for a discourse on the merits, the meaning and intention of it, for the simple reason that there have been thousands of letters sent all over this country inviting the lawyers to aid by influencing their Senators and their Congressmen to vote for the bill adopted and approved by the American Bar Association some 14 or 15 years ago, vesting in the Supreme Court of the United States the power of making rules on the law side of the court just as they have the right now to make rules on the equity side. Congress has enlarged every section, every court, and every commission it has created to make its own rules of government.

The President has recommended this bill, and Chief Justice Taft has been in favor of it. When he was President he recommended it to the Congress of the United States. The great majority of the Senate is in favor of it. The majority of members of the House, over their own signatures, are in favor of it. We are not speaking here from conjecture or belief. The Vice-Presidents for the various states wrote to their Senators and got letters from them saying they would vote for it. Those letters were filed with the Chairman of your committee, and your committee now has them in its possession, or they have been filed with the Senate.. We have dependence upon those statesmen to vote exactly as they write, as one would expect them to do.

Then you may ask, why is it that you cannot get the bill through.

Fortunately we have got communications from one of the most powerful Senators, a man who has great senatorial influence of a personal kind; it is not a political question, because there is no politics in it, but he has written and made the statement that he is opposed to that bill and he does not propose to see it passed if he can stop it. It was thought he might be influenced by the arguments of the other members of the Senate Committee. But it was said he caused the committee not to make a report, knowing at that time there were enough men to vote the bill out in the committee, waiting and anxious to do it. By some means he prevented it and has continued the work he is doing conscientiously and which he thinks it is his duty to do. There is but one hope in the world, so far as the Association is concerned, and that is to cut down the strength of this Senator by writing to the other Senators and telling them the condition of the affairs, and asking them to vote for this bill.

We get a favorable report from the Judiciary Committee right along. Last year they changed the personnel of the committee and put on some gentleman who were not inclined to give the courts the power they ought to have, and were in favor of taking away from the courts a great many powers given them in the common law and the Constitution of the United States. Those gentlemen promptly voted against our bill. There was an adverse report. We could not get it through. Two Senators, whose names I am not going to mention, demanded that the bill should not be suppressed in the committee any longer, and insisted that it be put out on the floor, so that they could get a vote on it. That is the reason it is on the floor now.

Our request is that you write to your Representatives and Senators and tell them this bill will be brought up at the short session, because Senator Sackett has promised it will be brought up, and get them to promise they will vote for it, or vote in some way, so that we will have a vote on this bill in December.

Hugh V. Mercer, of Minnesota:

I simply want a point of information, if the Chairman will tell us what the lines of argument against this bill are.