Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/663

 621

The Outlook for Uniformity both countries.

Experience has shown

that some sections of the Negotiable Instruments Act, criticized by the late Dean Ames and other competent jur

The Conference, in pursuance of the purposes for which it was organized, has also given its attention to social questions, and as already stated, has

ists, are susceptible of improvement, and suggestions of amendments are under consideration. One of the advantages of the Uniform Acts lies in the fact that amendments can be made as time and circumstances show their propriety, through the same

adopted the Uniform Divorce Act as if drawn by itself and sent it out with the other Uniform Acts for approval by the country. It has drafted and

agency as that from which they eman

Act. It has under consideration a Uni form Workmen's Compensation Act, and its committees are considering the

ated. There will be no danger of loss of uniformity from amendments by statute and that from judicial interpretation will be greatly minimized if the Confer ence be consulted in all cases before amendments are made. The Conference has made it a prac

issued a Uniform Child Labor Act, a Uniform Marriage and Marriage License

Act and a Uniform Family Desertion

advisability of uniform legislation on the subject of the situs of property for taxation,

insurance

in

some

of

its

branches, and other subjects as indi cated by the summary of the proceed

tice to employ a competent expert to make a draft of an act upon any subject it is decided to put in statutory form. This draft has been subjected

ings of the Boston meeting. The outlook for the continued strength

year after year to criticism by experts and persons interested in the subject

world begins to realize that there is only one alternative to an agreement

treated. Often public meetings have been held, and, ﬁnally, after delibera

among the states upon matters of vital concern to all of them which are not within the jurisdiction of the federal

tion sometimes extending over a number

of years, the draft has been approved. Even with this care mistakes may occur

or the changing conditions of business may make changes in the law necessary, but in either event it is obvious no indi vidual efforts to change or modify the uniform laws should be made until the Conference has had opportunity to con sider their merits. The number of states that have adopted the various Uniform Acts is shown in a footnote.1

' Negotiable Instrument: Law; Alabama. Colorado. Connecticut. Florida. Idaho. Illinois. Delaware. Iowa. Kansas. Kentucky. Louisiana. Maryland. Massachusetts, Michigan. Missouri. Montana. Nebraska. Nevada. New Hampshire. New Jersey. New York. North Carolina, North Dakota. Ohio. Oklahoma. Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. Tennessee. Utah. Virginia. Washington, West Vir

of the movement for uniformity is ex ceedingly encouraging. The business

Government. They must agree among themselves or the pressure of sentiment

will cause amendments to the federal Constitution that will still further mini ginia. Wisconsin. Wyoming. Arizona. Hawaii. New Mexico. District of Columbia, Philippine Islands. Warehouse Receipts Act; California. Connecticut. Illinois. Iowa. Kansas, Louisiana. Maryland. Massa chusetts. Michigan. Missouri. Nebraska. New Jersey. New Mexico. New York, Ohio. Pennsyl vania. Rhode Island. Tennessee. Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. District of Columbia. Sales Act; Connecticut. Maryland. Massachu setts. Michigan, New Jersey. New York. Ohio. Rhode Island. Wisconsin. Arizona. Divorce Act.‘ Delaware. New Jersey. Wisconsin. Stock Transfer Act; Louisiana. Maryland. Massa chusetts. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Bills of Ladt'ng Act; Connecticut. Maryland. Illi nois. Massachusetts. New York. Ohio, Pennsyl vania. Foreign Wills Act; Kansas, Massachusetts. Michi gan. Rhode Island. Washington. Wisconsin. Family Desertion Act.- Kansas. Massachusetts, Wisconsin. North Dakota.