Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York: I call attention to the fact that this report contains a recommendation not placed before the Association. The Chairman: If there is a recommendation in the report, the gentleman who presented the report may state it. Hugh V. Mercer, of Minnesota : The recommendation is that the committee be continued to investigate further the subject in connection with the Committee on Uniform State Laws. The Chairman: The question is before the house. Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York: I do not desire to oppose the recommendation specifically, but before the Association acts I should like to present one or two suggestions. First, this committee was originally appointed to co-operate with the National Civic Federation to secure a Uniform Workmen's Compensation Act for adoption in the various states. The committee has gone as far, I think, as it should attempt to go; namely, it has procured the active help of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The committee, of which Mr. Bailey is Chairman, has been working on this subject for more than two years. It has reported to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws a tentative draft of an act and that act has been approved by the conference. Now, this report does not deal with an effort to secure uniformity. The recommendations of the committee, so far as they are at all important, are with reference to the means of insuring compensation to workmen and the amount of their compensation. Both of those are more or less political considerations which this Association ought not to pass upon, even tentatively. For the reason that the only questions involved in the work which the committee is now doing are political, such as that the states should provide a system of insurance, and such as that the amount of compensation should be 50 per cent of the wages of the injured employe, and also for the reason that all that the Association can hope to do is being done by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and that the Association has a Standing Committee on Uniform Laws, I suggest that, unless the committee has some particular reason for continuing in its work, it ought to be discharged. Personally I do not care to have the phrases that have been inserted in this report cited to the legislatures of the country as being the expression of this Association on such political questions as the desirability of a state system of insurance. W. O. Hart, of Louisiana: Did the gentleman from New York make any motion? Thomas I. Parkinson, of New York: I endeavored to make it clear that I was addressing my remarks to the motion made by the Chairman of the committee. W. O. Hart, of Louisiana: Then I move as a substitute that the committee be discharged from further consideration of the subject and that the committee be not continued. It is a special committee; it is entirely within the power of the body to do that. I make the motion principally for the reason stated by Mr. Parkinson, that the subject is being considered by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, where it properly belongs. W. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: I second the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana. The question being put on the substitute offered by Mr. Hart, the committee was discharged from further consideration of the subject and was not continued. (See Report in Appendix, page 605.) The Chairman: The Special Committee on Government Liens on Real Estate. A committee on this subject, I am informed, was first appointed in 1905 for the purpose of securing an amendment to Section 3186 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Last year the committee reported progress to the effect that a bill had been introduced for the purpose of amending that section. The law as it then stood had been construed by the Supreme Court, in the case of the U. S. vs. Snyder, 149 U. S. Reports. It was held that the secret lien of the government was valid against an innocent purchaser for full value, without notice. The Court found that a tobacco warehouse in the State of Louisiana, purchased for full value and without notice of the claim of the government for unpaid revenue taxes, was liable for the amount of the tax in the hands of the purchaser. Now, for the purpose of securing some method whereby land owners can protect themselves against the lien of the government in such cases, an act was introduced into Congress a little over a year ago, and on February 17, 1913, passed the House; on the 4th of March it passed the Senate and was signed by the President. It is now in force. The amended section appears in the printed report of the committee. The committee having accomplished all the work for which it was created, asks to be discharged. W. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: In seconding the motion for the reception of the report and the discharge of the committee, I believe I echo the sentiments of all of us when I say: Well done, good and faithful servant. Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York: No one can question the admirable manner in which this committee has performed its work. But, because it has shown itself so competent, I trust that it may go on and cover another subject which should be committed to it. Through the legislation that it recommended it has provided for the exhibition and the publication of any lien of the government. I wonder if any my brethren here know how to get rid of such a lien after it is exhibited? Let me relate a difficulty that I had years ago. Thirty-six years ago I had to foreclose a mortgage. It was a first mortgage upon land, clear of all liens when given. A man set up a liquor saloon on the property, and after a time violated the Federal Excise Law. The government obtained judgment against of him for a considerable sum, which of course was subsequent to the mortgage. When I came to foreclose, I discovered this lien. And I could not foreclose without joining the government as a party defendant. The government would not consent. I went to Colonel George Bliss, the United States Attorney in New York. He said "I would readily appear, but I have directions from the government to appear in no case where I cannot certify that it is to the interest of the United States that it should become a party." Then I went to Washington, and saw Judge Taft, the father of ex-President Taft. He said the government could not consent to be sued. I inquired: "Do you mean that because of this subsequent lien of the government we shall not be allowed to foreclose this mortgage upon property that was free of encumbrance at the time it was given?" I went back to New York and asked Col. Bliss if he really had any hope of getting anything for the government out of the property. He said frankly no: that he thought the prior liens would exhaust everything. I said "Do you think it would be worth while for the government if thereby it could get $100?" "Oh, yes," he said. Then I said, “I will pay the government $100 on account of its claim if you will appear in the suit. Will you accept service on these terms?" He said, “I will." I paid him $100 for the government, and he appeared in the suit, and we foreclosed the mortgage. Now, isn't that scandalous! I move not only that we receive the report with thanks to the committee for their labors thus far, but that the matter of the removal and disposition of government liens be referred back to the committee for future consideration and report. W. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: I will second the motion, as well as the others. The Chairman: The Chair will put the question as one motion: That the report of the committee be received with thanks, and that W. A. Ketcham, of Indiana: One moment. The Chair is violating a strict rule of the Association, which provides that no thanks shall be extended to any member. The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana is quite right; the Chair withdraws those words in the statement of the pending question. The question is on the reception of the report of the committee and the continuance of the committee for the purpose stated. The motion was carried. (See Report in Appendix, page 618.) The Chairman: The Committee on Compensation to the Federal Judiciary. It has been suggested that the report go over until the next session; if there be no objection, it is so ordered. The Chairman: The Comparative Law Bureau. George Whitelock, of Maryland: I have been requested to state for Governor Baldwin, the Director of the Bureau, that he has been called to a conference of the Executive Committee of the Bureau. He desires that its report be simply received and filed. The Chairman: It will be so ordered. (See Report in Appendix, page 677.) The Association adjourned until 8 o'clock P. M. The President: EVENING SESSION. Tuesday, September 2, 1913, 8 P. M. We are greatly honored in having with us tonight a man dear to the heart of all American lawyers. I have the great honor of presenting to you Professor Taft of Yale University. William Howard Taft, of Connecticut: As I look upon you my sympathy goes out to you. I have been on the Bench and exercised mercy in sentences; I have been the Executive and extended clemency; I wish that I could do the |