Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/535

 494

The Green Bag

in an action brought in the federal courts has mistaken his remedy and brought his suit at law when it should have been brought in equity, or vice versa, this shall not defeat his action, but he may amend his proceedings and go on with out delay. It also provides that equi table defenses may be interposed in actions at law without the necessity of bringing a new suit in equity. This bill had passed the Senate, but had not been reported in the House. A third bill gives to litigants in the state courts an opportunity for a re view in the United States Supreme Court of a decision of the state court that a state statute is in violation of the Con stitution of the United States. This right does not now exist. A bill for this purpose also had passed the Senate, but had not been reported in the House. When Congress cannot find time to bring these important matters to a vote, and to consider measures which can re ceive no weightier endorsement than that of the American Bar Association, progress is effectually blocked for the time being, and no wonder that the Uniform State Laws Conference, though it approves the proposition of a uniform state statute governing procedure and pleading, deems it inexpedient to enter upon the task of drafting such an act at the present time, when the procedure in the federal courts is treated by Con gress with indifference. Will the new proposal of the Association, that Con gress take steps to revise common law pleading and procedure in the federal courts, meet with the same fate? In this connection it may be men tioned that another enlightened pro posal is likely soon to be made to Con gress by the Association, namely that for a bill-drafting agency at Washington, and how will this proposition be treated by Congress?

In the state legislatures, as well as in the national body, the work of the Association and Conference on Uniform State Laws is obstructed by the apathy of legislators, who are indifferent to the larger claims of state comity and who handicap the Conference by failing to cause their respective states to share in the expense of maintaining a most useful organization. We do not under stand the attitude of states which see fit to avail themselves of the results of the work of the Conference without choosing to shoulder any part of the financial burden. Still less do we under stand the failure of states to adopt laws to which they apparently have no definite objection, for the purpose of improving the quality of their statute law without the least trouble and of bringing it more closely into harmony with a common standard. In but few of the states would the enactment with out debate of the uniform acts regard ing divorce, child labor, family desertion, foreign wills, sales, warehouse receipts, stock transfers, and bills of lading, occasion the least dissatisfaction in any quarter. Receiving such scant encour agement, the enthusiasm of the Com missioners cannot help being somewhat dampened, and the country is fortunate indeed in the persistency with which they continue to codify new subjects, such as the evasion of marriage laws, partnership, workmen's compensation, and business corporations. Nothing in the legal system of the country has given rise to greater scan dal or excited more popular denuncia tion than the situation with respect to the remarriage of divorced persons for bidden by the courts to remarry, and for this reason no action taken at the Milwaukee -meetings was of greater importance than the adoption by Uni form State Laws Conference of the