Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That section 1, article VIII of the constitution, be amended to read: SECTION 1. 1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform, and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the legislature shall prescribe. Taxes may also be imposed on incomes, privileges and occupations, which taxes may be graduated and progressive, and reasonable exemptions may be provided. 2. The legislature shall have power to authorize counties, towns, cities and villages, by a vote of the electors therein, to exempt from taxation, in whole or in part, designated classes of property; but the value of such property exempted by any county shall be included in the assessment and equalization for state taxes, and the value of such property exempted by any town, city or village shall be included in the assessment and equalization for state and county taxes. Assembly: Ayes, 68; Noes, 20. MERLIN HULL, Speaker of the Assembly. H. C. MARTIN, President of the Senate. C. E. SHAFFER, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, F. M. WYLIE, Chief Clerk of the Senate. [Jt. Res. No. 56, S.] JOINT RESOLUTION To amend section 10 of article VIII of the constitution, relating to internal improvements. Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That section 10 of article VIII of the constitution be amended by adding at the end of said section the following: "Provided, that the state may appropriate money in order to preserve, develop, regulate or improve the navigable waters or stream in the state, and to acquire, preserve, regulate or develop the water supply, water powers, lands and forests in the state." To amend section 25 of article IV of the constitution, relating to state printing. Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That section 25 of article IV of the constitution be amended to read: Section 25. The legislature shall, except as hereinafter provided, provide by law, that all stationery required for the use of the state, and all printing authorized and required by them to be done for their use, or for the state, shall be let by contract to the lowest bidder, but the legislature may establish a maximum price; no member of the legislature, or other state officer, shall be interested, either directly or indirectly, in any such contract; the legislature may, however, establish by law a state printing plant and provide that all or any state printing, of any kind whatsoever, shall be done at such plant. Senate: Ayes, 19; Noes, 1. H. C. MARTIN, President of the Senate. MERLIN HULL, Speaker of the Assembly. F. M. WYLIE, Chief Clerk of the Senate. C. E. SHAFFER, Chief Clerk of the Assembly. [Jt. Res. No. 55, S.] JOINT RESOLUTION To amend article IX of the constitution, by adding thereto three new sections, relating to sale of state lands. Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That article IX of the constitution be amended by adding thereto three new sections to read: SECTION 4. The fee to all lands bordering on any meandered or non-meandered stream, river, pond, or lake, navigable in fact for any purpose whatsoever, which now are or which hereafter may be owned or held by the state to the extent of one chain on every side thereof, together with such additional area as the legislature may by law provide for any public use or purpose, including water power and reservoir uses and purposes, shall forever remain in the state, and any leases of said lands shall reserve to the people the right of access to such lands and all rights necessary to the full enjoyment of such waters. SECTION 5. In all grants or conveyances of land hereafter made by the state to individuals or corporations the state expressly reserves all mineral rights, water power rights, rights of flowage, and reservoir rights; and such rights in all lands now or hereafter owned or held by the state shall never be alienated. SECTION 6. The right to cut and remove timber or the right to mine and remove minerals from any lands now or hereafter owned or held by the state shall never be granted to private persons or corporations, except by affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members-elect of both houses of the legislature. THOMAS MORRIS, F. M. WYLIE, Chief Clerk of the Senate. C. E. SHAFFER, Chief Clerk of the Assembly. MERLIN HULL, Speaker of the Assembly. COMMUNICATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT To the legislature of the State of Wisconsin: In response to the joint resolution passed by the legislature of 1913, requesting the justices of the Supreme Court "to suggest such changes in the code practice of the state as will simplify it, relieve it of technicalities and promote the ends of justice," the undersigned beg leave to say that while they should regard the making of suggestions with regard to changes in substantive law as distinctly outside of the judicial field, they regard the subject of procedure in the courts as a field in which judges may properly suggest the passage of measures which they believe will promote the speedy and efficient administration of justice in the courts. This is not merely because of the exceptional opportunity which the judges necessarily have of observing the operation of the rules of procedure, but also because, originally, the prescribing of rules of procedure was a power vested in the courts. and in many jurisdictions this natural and logical system has been deliberately returned to as the best means of securing simplicity and efficiency in judicial procedure. In 1856, eight years after the adoption of the original Field code of procedure in New York, this state adopted the same with some slight changes not affecting its substantial features. That code marked a long stride towards the goal of simplicity in legal procedure. If we examine it now after the lapse of more than sixty years, we can have but admiration for its brevity, its wisdom and its comprehensiveness. Its author had a vision of a system of procedure transparently simple and direct, which, while conserving all the essential rights, should at the same time eliminate non-essential refinements which serve only as pitfalls for the unwary practitioner. That vision was embodied in the code. Fortunately for Wisconsin, the code has been preserved from any considerable changes or additions during the years which have elapsed since its adoption. The legislature of this state has never attempted the impossible task of regulating by statute every procedural move in court, but has loyally stood by the essential principle of the code, namely, the principle that the legislature should lay down fundamentals of procedure only, leaving with the courts the power by rules and decision to mold the details as experience may show to be wise. The wisdom of this course is evident. Every rigid statutory requirement governing procedure furnishes an additional opportunity for mistake or forgetfulness on the part of one party or the other, and for dilatory motions, objections and appeals on the part of his adversary. Under a code which attempts to regulate every step in an action by a separate statutory rule of procedure, practice becomes a labyrinth in which the best lawyer may become lost; procedure becomes an end,— not a means, and justice is often lost sight of in the endeavor to operate a vastly complicated machine. Every hard and fast procedural requirement which does not materially aid the parties in seasonably stating and proving their contentions, or the court in properly comprehending and considering those contentions, is useless and should be abolished. The presence of many such requirements in any system of court procedure means that the attainment of justice must frequently be subordinated to the attainment of skill in the operation of a machine. Judicial effort, which should be exerted in determining the merits of a cause, will be spent in the attempt to understand and correctly apply mere methods. If these views be correct, it follows that any changes in our code of procedure should be along the line of eliminating rigid procedural requirements, and granting to the courts. greater power to control the details of practise, as well as greater power to relieve parties from the inadvertent or excusable failure to obey some legislative rule; in other words, the changes should be such as to remove rigidity and give flexibility to procedure by giving the courts power to mold the details as occasion may require. |