methods of legislation will in time be entrusted to the ordinary channels of the judicial branch of government. It cannot be done in a day, a year, nor in some states even in a decade, but it will be accomplished. The readjustment is going steadily forward and there is little doubt that in the near future the people of this great nation will at last fully emerge from the cloud of antiquity, discard the old cruel, useless and futile criminal laws and procedure and adopt sane, humane and rational measures for the protection of society from its defective members and provide for their proper care and reformation. Then every crime, when its perpetrator is discovered, will mean special study and treatment of the culprit according to enlightened methods and ends, and the pardoning power will change from an active function into an interesting historical tradition.

UNIFORM LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES

BY WALTER GEORGE SMITH,

Of the Philadelphia Bar.

Notwithstanding the advantages connected with the principle of local self-government, which finds its expression in the federal system, modern developments of commercial and social life have brought about obvious and grave evils. It is a commonplace that the form of government devised by the great men who drafted the Constitution of the United States was brought into being under conditions more dissimilar from those of today, so far as they related to trade and commerce, than those conditions themselves were to the period when Rome governed the world. A population less by a million or more than that which now crowds Manhattan Island and the shores of New York Bay, scattered along the Atlantic coast, with its outposts just beginning to cross the Alleghenies, constituted the people of the United States. They were for the most part of pure English descent, and the common law of the mother country was administered substantially without other change than the differences of a new country made necessary. The industries were mainly agricultural and maritime, and the disputed questions of state or federal jurisdiction, while of momentous importance, were indefinitely fewer than those which now command public attention. None the less, so well marked are the political principles upon which the federal constitution is based, so wisely had they been evolved in the minds of the early statesmen from the precedents afforded by the history of human government, that with comparatively few amendments they have been adapted to the needs of the states during all the memorable years from 1789 till the present day. The political systems of other nations that were contemporary with our own in 1789 have all passed away or been so modified that we may truthfully say that, while we are the youngest of the great nations, our government as it stands today with its checks and balances, its reserved rights of the states and delegated powers of the general government, is the oldest now existing.

The time has come, however, when acknowledged evils, not ap

parent when our population was small and the mastery of the hidden forces of nature had not revolutionized habits of life, are pressing for solution. The apparent simplicity of conferring on the general government the full jurisdiction over matters of interstate commerce allowed by the letter of the constitution or which by interpretation can be brought under the spirit of its language, has led a large and constantly increasing number of political thinkers to advocate further amendments that will give jurisdiction in matters of more intimate local concern.

Needless to say, unless this tendency towards the magnifying of federal jurisdiction and minimizing of the states shall be checked, we shall find ourselves under an imperial system which, whatever be its advantages, is essentially bad and fraught with danger to American ideals. There would seem to be but one antidote for the evil of exaggerated federal jurisdiction and that rests in the principle of uniform legislation by the various states. Wholesale and many branches of retail business have long since ceased to operate within a single state, and if it cannot find relief from the divergent laws of the different states on the same subjects, it will demand and will receive the boon from a changed constitution.

Competent publicists have expressed the opinion that the machinery of the federal government is already clogged and overweighted. There are dangers to be apprehended from the further reducing of state jurisdiction which need not be enlarged upon. No citizen, proud of the success of our representative republican system, can witness its decay without sorrow and foreboding. The constitutional checks and limitations are the best if not the only safeguard of the rights of a minority and the surest defense against sectional legislation. If then it be possible to preserve them and yet permit the widest expansion of commercial activity, there can be no doubt that it is a patriotic duty to do so.

It is believed that the history and accomplishment of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws will show the possibility of attaining substantial uniformity in many matters of commercial and social importance. The conference reflects in many ways the sentiment of the legal profession and, though a distinct body, is itself an outcome of the efforts of the American Bar Association to fulfill one of its declared objects, "to promote the administration of justice and uniformity of legislation throughout the Union."

Following the appointment of a committee composed of one member from each state by the association in 1889 to meet in convention and examine the laws of the different states, especially those relating to marriage and divorce, descent and distribution of property, acknowledgment of deeds and execution and probate of wills, with a view to bringing about uniformity on these subjects, the legislature of New York in 1890 authorized the governor to appoint three commissioners by the name and style of "Commissioners for the Promotion of Uniformity of Legislation in the United States" to ascertain the best means to effect an assimilation and uniformity in the laws of the states, and to consider whether it would be practicable to invite other states to send representatives to a convention to draft uniform laws to be submitted for the approval and adoption of the several states.

Year by year since 1890 such a convention has been held. The commissioners have organized themselves into a permanent body with a constitution and by-laws, executive officers, and standing and special committees. All of the states, territories and possessions of the United States are represented, more than one-half by virtue of legislative authority and the others by the exercise of gubernatorial discretion. In 1913 there were present commissioners, representing thirty-five states and territories. The conference meets annually some days before the sessions of the American Bar Association and at the same place. Its members are almost entirely lawyers, and their work is customarily but not necessarily submitted for approval to the Bar Association through its committee on uniform state laws.

The method adopted for drafting the more lengthy acts offers every possible safeguard against hasty and slipshod legislation. The subject having been decided to be appropriate for uniform legislation by the conference, is referred to the proper committee with authority to employ an expert. The expert in due time submits his draft to the committee which, after careful revision, reports to the conference a tentative draft of an act. In some cases acts have been printed and reprinted with annotations and explanations several times, have been in all cases submitted to lawyers, professors, business men and corporation officials. Public meetings are held by the committees, and finally the draft act is approved and sent to the different states, through their respective commissioners, for adoption.

The most successful of the efforts to attain uniformity has been in the case of the negotiable instruments act. It was drafted by John J. Crawford, Esq., of the New York bar, an expert on the subject. He had for a basis of his work the English bills of exchange act of 1882, which had been the law of Great Britain and her various colonies for many years. In preparing this act the English draftsman merely sought to put in the form of a statute the law as found in the decisions of the courts, and where there was a conflict of decision to adopt the doctrine supported by the weight of authority. The act, after repeated redrafts, was finally offered for approval in 1896, and has since been adopted without much amendment-in fortysix states, territories and the District of Columbia.

The Warehouse Receipts Act

This act was drafted by Prof. Samuel Williston, of Harvard Law School, and Barry Mohun, Esq., of Washington, D. C., an author of a work on warehouse receipts. This bill has met with acceptance in thirty states. The commercial importance of warehouse receipts and bills of lading has developed a systematic theory in regard to them, which had its origin in the custom of merchants. As stated by Professor Williston:

The fundamental doctrines of the mercantile theory are the complete assignability of the document if it runs to order, and the complete identification of the document with the goods it represents. Both these doctrines are contrary to the ordinary common law principles.

The passage of this act makes goods in the hands of a warehouseman impossible of attachment, without the surrender of the receipt, or its being impounded by the court. Thus full negotiability is given to warehouse receipts, excepting that title does not pass where they fall into the hands of a thief. In view of the enormous values of all sorts of merchandise held in storage, the effect of adding these documents of title to the bankable paper of the country can be appreciated at a glance.

The Uniform Bills of Lading Act

This was finally adopted by the conference after five separate drafts had been printed and revised. Bills of lading are divided