Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/331

 F-——a_.s _-__ _. . .;m---qiiﬁt~— ._-—_h_—_ '—

The Editor's Bag reports of the Committee, however, does not lay emphasis on the restrictive aspect of the measure, and if the Act

had to rely on this alone for support, the movement for uniformity in divorce legislation might well be in danger of receiving a serious setback. The more enlightened thought of the day regarding the function of law dis

countenances the theory that it is possible to alter fundamental habits of human society by means of legislation. Law cannot supplant or overrule morality. It can at best only reﬂect morality and make its mandates effective. The problem of the jurist in drafting a uni

form divorce act is solely that of formu lating a law which fully meets with the requirements of social justice. The repression of the divorce evil may safely

"

311

The age has reached the point where it is futile to expect that any theological or institutional statement of morality

can prevail, except so far as it commands the; approval of the community in general. All really have the same fundamental interest of social welfare at heart, and the churchman, the jurist, and the man of science can and should co-operate in the effort to make legis lation conform to the highest ethical demands of the age. For these reasons we do not think that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws made any mistake in approv ing this Act, which was the outcome of

the deliberations of a. congress in the deliberations of which church dignitaries

were allowed to participate. For these same reasons we think it would be

be left to morality, so long as the law

a. great mistake to ignore the manifest

rises fully to the responsibility of pro viding the means for executing the moral judgment of society. A dog

advantages of enlisting scientiﬁc co

matic attitude on the part of the drafts

man is thus ill suited to his task. He cannot aﬁord to take the position that any special conception of morality is paramount to the general one per meating the whole social fabric, nor

operation for the purpose of promoting any phase of the movement for uniform state laws. The Uniform Divorce Act

is a meritorious piece of legislation, and in our judgment reﬂects the views not of any special interest but of the pro gressive elements of the legal profession in the United States. If, however,

can he ignore the results of sociological

it has any minor defects to which

investigation conducted in accordance

suﬁicient attention has not yet been directed, the liberal-minded, rational

with a sound scientific method. sociologist,

to

be

sure,

may

The

uncon

methods to be employed in remedying

sciously underrate the responsibility of the state, but he nevertheless recog

them are obvious.

nizes the fact that society is able to remedy its own evils, and will inevitably

DIFFICULTIES OF A CODIFICA TION OF AMERICAN LAW

attempt that task without becoming

wholly dependent upon external aid from legislation. The sociologist is by virtue of his calling a profound believer

E print elsewhere in this issue a

powerful plea for a uniform

in the wholesomeness of popular con

legislative codiﬁcation of American law. The article was inspired by the project

ceptions of morality, and the public

of Messrs.

spirited jurist and the conscientious

Andrews

churchman are not less devoted to the same ideal, if they do but know it.

pages, contemplating a “tacit" or purely

Alexander, Kirchwey and recently

outlined

expository codiﬁcation.

in

these