in any recommendations to this Association. The report is prepared to give the Association information of what has been done by national conference. The nature of the subject is such that nothing can be done to accomplish the object of having the laws uniform in the different states except through the agency of a national representative body that will command attention and exert influences in all the states where each separate state has to legislate on the subject. The committee is indebteded to Mr. Charles E. Shepard for preparing the information that is submitted in the report. We deem it merely a matter of information and not of recommendation.

MR. MCLEAN-I move that the report be adopted.
Motion seconded by Mr. Munter.

THE PRESIDENT-Are there any remarks?

JUDGE WHITSON-If the adoption of the report has any tendency to commit the Association to this "Will-o'-the-Wisp" of uniformity of state laws, I should not be in favor of the adoption of the report. I take it, from what Judge Hanford has said, that it would not commit the Association, because they expressly confined themselves to a very full and accurate statement of what has been done looking to the end which a great many people seem to think is very desirable. Now, assuming that uniformity of state laws is a desirable thing—and the desirability of it is greatly overestimated-I think we will never live to see the day when we will accomplish what the advocates of this matter claim for it, or hope to accomplish. You know how difficult it is to secure legislation. This Bar Association may prepare any sort of a bill and recommend its passage and go to the legislature and secure it. I remember a Good Roads Convention that was held in this state some years ago, and a committee was appointed to draft some laws relating to roads. Judge Hanford was on that committee, and I had the honor

of being a member of it. There were several other members, five in all, I think. We parcelled out the work. We prepared what we considered, and I consider yet, a most excellent system looking to the building of good roads in this state. That proposed legislation was sent to Olympia. It was disregarded. Even the bill requiring wide tires on wagons was not adopted by the legislature, as I remember it. Now, the difficult thing is this: There are different conditions, there are different interests, there are different traditions in the different states of the Union, and it is perfectly futile, in my judgment, to undertake to bring all these diverse interests together in one agreement upon any particular matter of legislation. Divorce is the great hobby of the uniformity people, and the laws are SO radically different in the different states, and the administration of them is so different, that it will be impossible to ever arrive at any sort of uniformity. It can only be reached by a nationalized government. These matters put in the hands of Congress, of course, would be the proper method. So far as I am concerned I should think that would be a good thing, but that, of course, is contrary to our traditions and contrary to our system of government entirely. Now, we will never accomplish this. It is a good thing to talk about, perhaps it is a good thing to hold conventions about, but my opinion is that the quicker we stop it the better it will be for this Association, and we may save ourselves a lot of trouble. I believe that the report does not recommend this legislation or the pursuit of this subject. For that reason I am supporting the motion.

MR. GROSSCUP-I do not agree with Judge Whitson that uniformity of laws is an impossibility to accomplish. I think that something over thirty states have adopted the negotiable instrument act which has introduced uniformity on that subject in all the thirty states; and personally, I think that should be followed by uniformity on the subject of warehouse receipts

and other matters that go directly to commercial transactions. I have never given the subject of divorce any study myself, and do not know anything about it, but I think it would be very desirable to have uniform laws in so far as they relate to commercial matters, and perhaps it is going too far, at the present time, to say so far as they relate to real estate. I think we have not arrived, yet, at the period when that could be taken up, but we have gotten far enough along to have uniform laws in commercial matters, and my idea would be that this Association should recommend to the legislature the continuance of a delegate in this interstate association for the proposing of laws, and we should also give the stamp of our approval, at least, to the direction in which that delegate should work and, with that view, if it is in order, I move an amendment to this motion, that the report be received and that the legislature be recommended to continue a delegate in this association for the uniformity of laws and that he be instructed to work, particularly, to bring about a law on the subject of uniform laws so far as they relate to commercial matters. I agree with Judge Whitson that we cannot go too far and too fast, but I think we can go that far. We can follow the negotiable instrument law, one step, and it will be a step in the right direction, so that a lawyer may know, with some degree of certainty, what the law in another state is.

The amendment to the motion received a second.

THE PRESIDENT-The motion is an amendment to the original motion that the report of the committee be adopted. Are there any further remarks?

MR. PARKER—Mr. President, I have a good deal of sympathy with Judge Whitson's suggestions, but I am also very much impressed with Brother Grosscup's suggestion. Now, just because the ideal is far off is, to my mind, no reason for with

holding all efforts in that direction. In the evolution of things we have come to that stage when we have practically agreed upon a law touching negotiable instruments, and as time goes on, there will be other subjects evolved where we all arrive on common ground. It does not seem to me, as Brother Whitson suggests, that, on the question of divorce, we are a long ways from that; but in that, I would not withhold a hand on that account, and probably in a year or two we will want to recommend something to the legislature.

JUDGE HANFORD-Mr. President, Judge Whitson has mention the difficulty of securing enactments, that, is, affirmative action by the legislature. I think one of the evils that we have to contend against is too much legislation, and if we continue to co-operate with the national association looking to the uniformity of state laws we will be able to hold what ground we have gained. If we have not power and influence enough to influence affirmative legislation we can, at least, work negatively to keep the legislature from changing these uniform laws that have been enacted. Having once arrived at common ground, it is something to have an influence at work to prevent the eternal tinkering and changing which causes a great deal of confusion and trouble to people in business.

There being no further remarks, the question upon the amendment is put to the house and carried.

The original motion as amended also carried.

THE PRESIDENT-We will now listen to a paper by Mr. Henry McLean upon The Evolution of Legislative Methods.

MR. MCLEAN-Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Bar Association: When this subject was first assigned me I took some pains to investigate and collect some material, both from historical and scientific sources, but it grew to such magnitude that I found it practically impossible to deal with the subject in a paper like this, and I commenced pruning most severely, and I

finally found it necessary to confine my remarks to one principle and to one application of that principle, and my paper would be more properly entitled "The Evolution of State Legislative Methods," and if the Secretary feels inclined to publish this or does publish it, I would like to have him give it that subject instead of the more general one of "The Evolution of Legislative Methods." (See Appendix.)

THE PRESIDENT-Discussion of this very interesting paper is now in order.

JUDGE BLACK-Mr. President, I have been struck with this paper, and it voices a sentiment that I do not approve of. Legislation should come from the walks of the humble and of all of the people. Men look at questions honestly differing, largely from their point of view, from the kind of glasses we wear. If we wear green glasses we see green colors. This idea of having some superior beings legislate for us I think is wrong. The man that toils in the ditches and rubs shoulder to shoulder with his fellow workingman in the mill; the man that tills the the ground and knows the wants and thoughts of that people, I think are fit for legislation everywhere. It strikes at the very foundation root of our government. It was said, when this great government of ours was formed, when it was a mere experiment, that here were a lot of renegades from all over the world, men turned to this country because of crimes that they had committed, men who were sent to this country because they were not thought to be good citizens of others; that this people could never govern themselves and never legislate for themselves and never build up a great government. This has been an experiment that stands in the face of the world as proof of the fact that men—the ordinary, every-day men, are fit for legislative duties and fit for government. This grand country of ours, the grandest in the history of all the world, it seems to me, stands forth as proof of this fact that there are no men so constituted