3. The amendment of sections 894 and 895 of the Penal Code relating to the impaneling of grand juries and abolishing challenges to the panel and to individual grand jurors.

4. The amendment of section 1008 of the Penal Code relating to the amendment of indictments and informations. 5. The amendment of section 988 of the Penal Code by striking out the provision that an accused shall be served with a copy of the testimony given in his case before the grand jury.

6. The amendment of section 686 of the Penal Code, so as to permit the admission in evidence of the testimony of a witness taken on a former trial, who subsequently dies, becomes insane, or cannot be found.

7. The amendment of section 1111 of the Penal Code relating to convictions on the testimony of accomplices.

8. Adding a new section to the Penal Code to be known as section 1324, providing for the compulsory production of evidence in certain cases.

9. Adding a new section to the Penal Code to be known as section 1053, relating to the substitution of judges, in case of the death, sickness, or unavoidable absence of the judge before whom a case is being tried.

10. The amendment of section 1070 of the Penal Code, reducing the number of peremptory challenges, and allowing the people and defendant an equal number of peremptory challenges.

11. The amendment of section 1247 of the Penal Code relating to appeals, so as to relieve the State of the cost of transcripts in unmeritorious and frivolous appeals.

12. The amendment of sections 1127 and 1176 of the Penal Code by doing away with special requests for instructions and imposing on the court the entire responsibility for charges to the jury.

13. Providing an appeal from orders discharging prisoners in habeas corpus proceedings.

The recommendations made for the amendment of the Constitution (numbered 1 and 2) were not approved by the Legislature. Notwithstanding this, we advise that these amendments be approved by the Association and their submission to the people by the Legislature recommended.

Sections 894 and 895 of the Penal Code were amended in conformity with the recommendation of the Association.

Section 1008 was amended in a slightly modified form. The proposed amendment of section 988 of the Penal Code was enacted. Section 686 of the Penal Code was amended, with slight modifications, as proposed. Section 1111 of the Penal Code was amended as recommended. And proposed new section 1324 was enacted, with slight verbal changes.

A new section was added, numbered section 1053, which does not differ materially from the amendment proposed by the Association.

The Legislature rejected the proposed amendment to section 1070 of the Penal Code.

The amendment proposed to section 1247 of the Penal Code, slightly modified in form, was enacted.

The Legislature refused to amend sections 1127 and 1176 of the Penal Code, and also rejected the amendment adding a new section to be numbered 1506, providing for an appeal from an order discharging an applicant in habeas corpus proceedings.

The Association should feel encouraged that so many of its recommendations were adopted by the Legislature. As, however, there will not be another general session of the Legislature until after the 1912 meeting of the Association, this Section has deemed it wise to make no recommendations at this time for further amendment, but to recommend to the Association that it again give its approval to such of the recommendations as were adopted in 1910, and which failed of adoption by the Legislature, and to endeavor, by all proper means, to secure their adoption at the next general session of the Legislature.

It is worthy of note in this respect that the Legislature in proposing for adoption section 41⁄2 of article 6 of the Constitution, providing that no judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted in any criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, followed a recommendation of the American Bar Association. That body, however, advised the enactment of statutory provisions of this character applicable to both civil and criminal cases. In view of the provision of the Constitution declaring

its terms to be mandatory and prohibitory unless otherwise provided, the effect of this amendment will be to obviate the reversal of judgments in criminal cases for technical errors which do not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. All of which is respectfully submitted.

WM. J. HUNSAKER, Chairman.
J. D. FREDERICKS,

S. M. DAVIS,

BEVERLY L. HODGHEAD,
GRANT H. SMITH.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL BIOGRAPHY.

To the President of the California Bar Association:

Your committee on Legal Biography regret to report that since our last annual meeting in Los Angeles two members of the Association have been called by death, and, in conformity with the precedent and purpose established at that meeting, we herewith respectfully submit the following brief biographical sketches of their individual careers:

Walter J. Trask.

Walter J. Trask, the son of Kiah B. and Mary Jane (Dunton) Trask, was born in South Jefferson, Maine, on July 6th, 1862. He received his education at Nichols Latin School, Lewiston, Maine, and at the Waterville, Me., Classical Institute. He was, in 1886, admitted to the bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, and, in 1890, moved to Los Angeles, California, where in 1893, he associated himself with Hon. John D. Bicknell until 1897, when the firm of Bicknell, Gibson & Trask was formed, which latter firm was afterwards, in 1903, merged with that of Dunn and Crutcher under the firm name of Bicknell, Gibson, Trask, Dunn & Crutcher, which, on the retirement of Judge Bicknell, continued under the firm name of Gibson, Trask, Dunn & Crutcher. Mr. Trask died at his residence, 1321 South Figueroa street, Los Angeles, on the 9th day of May, 1911.

He was twice married, and left surviving him his widow,

Victoria H. Trask, and an only child, Caroline B. Trask, the issue of his first marriage. He was independent in politics and never sought or held any public office. He left, as one of the best monuments to his memory, the reputation of being an able and conscientious lawyer.

Gilbert Dwight Munson.

Gilbert Dwight Munson, the oldest son of Colonel Horace D. Munson, was born in Godfrey, Marion County, Illinois, September 26th, 1840. In 1846 his parents removed to Zanesville, Ohio, where he was educated in the public schools, certificated as a teacher at the age of seventeen, taught school and began the study of law.

At the beginning of the Civil War he enlisted as a private soldier in the Fifteenth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and took part in many battles and campaigns during the war, took part in the final grand review at Washington, and by frequent promotions attained the official rank of Colonel. At the close of the war he returned to Zanesville, resumed his law studies, attended the law school of Columbia University, and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1867. From the latter date to 1894 he was actively engaged in the practice of law in the courts of Muskingum and adjoining counties, and, from 1894 to 1899, served as Common Pleas Judge in the Eighth Ohio Judicial District.

In 1900 he removed to Los Angeles, California, and there associated himself with Henry A. Barclay under the law firm name of Munson & Barclay, which partnership continued until his death on the 21st day of May, 1911.

He is survived by his widow, Lucy S. Potwin Munson, a daughter, Mrs. Ernest Northcote, and a brother, Charles Munson.

Scrupulously conscientious and patriotic, he was held in high estimation by lawyers, suitors, clients and people generally.

Since the convening of the present meeting of the Association, the death of Alexander G. Eells of San Francisco has been brought to the attention of your committee, and as there is no opportunity at this time to obtain the necessary data, we would suggest that the writing of Mr. Eells biography be referred to the incoming committee for action at our next annual meeting.

JAMES KEITH, Chairman.

REPORT OF THE SECTION ON LAWS RELATIVE TO
TRUSTS AND CORPORATIONS
SECTION "E."

(To be presented at the meeting of the California Bar Association, at Sacramento, November, 1911.)

This Section has been unable to make the investigation the subject assigned to it requires, but desires, nevertheless, to submit the following report:

At this time the laws relative to trusts and corporations are on trial all over the country. They are not only under fire in the Courts, State and Federal, but in public opinion throughout the land. In many instances they stand the assault but imperfectly. This seems to be due to the fact that they come largely from two sources, neither entirely impartial or unprejudiced. First, from the corporations themselves, who seek to and have enacted laws which meet their immediate needs but often ignore the public well-being. Second, from semi-political organizations and popular leaders, who have a sense of economic and social wrong, and strive for better things, but without understanding or considering the history or forms of the law as applied to the work they are about to do.

The result is a condition of agitation and conflict out of which arises endless legal problems. Many of these problems could be solved-indeed, avoided-if the Bar Associations of the country would give their attention as quasipublic bodies, which they are, to legislation while it is in the making. To this end, we believe State Bar Associations, through their officers or committees, should take a part in the framing of important corporation legislation, approaching the problem with a desire to serve the public welfare without fear or favor, neither moved on one side by the demands of corporations, nor on the other by the importunities of those who seek to correct alleged evils by hasty and ill-considered legislation. The sole purpose should be to meet the needs of the times fairly and squarely, but in lawful measures and according to the principles and requirements of our Constitutions.

In this behalf it seems to us that particular attention