relating to it, as in the affirmative performance of perfecting a new uniform measure, and giving it to the states. Accordingly, we are excluding from consideration many proposed uniform acts which have been pressed upon our attention, either as not opportune at this period or as of less importance than those which we suggest for immediate introduction and passage by the Legislature.

We recommend that there be presented to the Legislature at its present session only two uniform acts, which have been approved heretofore unanimously by this body, having been previously approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by the American Bar Association, to wit: The Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Uniform Limited Fartnership Act.

We give warning that we shall, during the present session of the Legislature, ask the Executive Committee of this body and other members of the body to lend their co-operation in our efforts with the Legislature to secure the adoption of these measures. We think it only fair and fitting that the Association should see to it that the legislation which it has approved and the adpotion of which it has recommended should lend all possible strength and support to the accomplishment of its purpose as thus designated.

UNIFORMITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS

The necessity is laid upon us to direct efforts to secure uniformity of judicial determination as concurrently with our efforts to secure uniformity of legislative enactment. We have taken a long step in this direction in directing a communication to the members of our courts of record, calling attention not only to the desirability of uniformity of judicial interpretation, but to the proper, if not required, weight to be given to the decisions of other states upon the same provision of the uniform state law which may be under consideration by the particular court in a particular case.

An effort has been made to render aid to the Bench and Bar in respect of uniformity of judicial decisions by the publication

of a book last year by Messrs. Baker, Voorhis & Company, which I had the pleasure of preparing, after five years of work upon the same, under the auspices of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. In that book all of the uniform acts thus far promulgated are given with their full text. Schedules of cross references to the respective sections, as they appear in the statutes of all the states which have enacted them and a tabulation of all the cases thus far decided, under each of those sections by each of the states, chronologically arranged, are printed in the book. This affords a source of information, for easy reference, which enables any one at a glance to find out what courts have construed a particular section and how they have construed it.

There would seem to be no excuse left for variance in judicial interpretation and a resultant divergence of judicial decisions, unless it has found that a palpable error had been committed by some court in its work of construction.

The emphasis which has been laid upon the importance of harmony among the decisions of the respective states on questions arising under the uniform statutes is a very just and a most important one.

When once full knowledge of the uniform statutes shall have come to Bench and Bar, and the necessity of uniformity of judicial decisions shall have received recognition by judicial officers, in whose keeping, indeed, is much of that which our system of jurisprudence holds valuable, then, will the burden of this Committee have been much lightened, and its function have become easy of performance.

CONCLUSION

COMITY AND THE NATIONAL MIND

More and more every day citizens of this country are coming to think in terms of the nation. The narrow limits of state's rights, state's obligations, and state's interests are being transcended in fields to which they do not truly pertain, by the sound requirements of national unity. There is a province for individual and exclusive state action, and there is a province for state comity and state co-operation with other states. The boundaries of these two provinces are distinct and an appreci

ation of the national ideal is marking the distinction more clearly every moment. Irrespective of imaginary geographical boundaries, defining the states, we are first and last and all the time, a nation. That consideration is paramount. We are not advocating centralization of government. We are not advising the obliteration of state's lines. On the contrary, we would deprecate the former and warn against the latter. Our faith in the dual sovereignty, and the nice checks and balances of our system of government has grown strong in these latter days, as the assaults upon it from both its friends and foes have disclosed at once their own futility and the inherent soundness of the object of their attack. Frequently we have had extended to us sympathy in our efforts because we rest for our influence and effectiveness on no compelling constitutional authority; because we cannot enforce the adoption of the laws we promulgate. But we ask no sympathy, and we have no patience with the lament. It overlooks the real power of this work and the persuasive influence of its pronouncements. Its sanction is higher than any constitutional authority, and its fundaments go more deeply than any mere state or federal favor, as such. It rests upon common sense and the voluntary approval of the people. With it the Committee can do anything, without it, it could do nothing, whatever sanction it might have in federal constitution or in the state or national favor. The citizens of this country have determined that diversity of law on matters which intimately affect their industrial, their domestic and their social relations leads to gross injustices, and by that token, is no longer tolerable. In that determination rests the power of the Committee and the inevitable success of its efforts.

CHARLES THADDEUS TERRY,

for the Committee.

The President:

I take it that a motion will be in order that the report of the Committee on Uniform Laws, which Mr. Terry has read, be received and filed. Apparently there is no recommendation in the form of a resolution, except the statement of the committee that it proposes to give effect to the unanimous resolutions that have heretofore been adopted by the Association, and which it is hardly necessary to repeat now.

On motion duly made and seconded the report was received, placed on file and the committee continued.

The President:

The next report we would like to take up is from the Committee on Ethics.

Henry W. Jessup, of New York, presented the following report:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LEGAL ETHICS To the New York State Bar Association:

The Committee on Ethics has no formal report to offer. It suggests the propriety of action by the Association to continue the committee in life. It deems it proper to call the attention of the Association to the fact that the May number of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science this year will be devoted to a symposium upon the ethics of the professions, including professions with recognized standards of ethics such as law, engineering, architects; and professions with standards in the making, including teaching, ministry, social work, journalism, business. It is to cover the discussion of what constitutes a profession, the functions and inter-relations of professional organizations, their opportunities and responsibilities, their ethical codes, the reasons for erection of such standards, the forms which their group action may have taken and the methods by which they protect their standards and deal with those who violate accepted practice. It will include also a discussion of training, recruiting and the maintenance of employment service. This ambitious program will cover an issue of some 220 pages. It will have a circulation of over 9,000 among the regular subscribers to this publication, and will be participated in by representative authorities in each profession.

It is suggested that this publication when issued, together with Bulletin No. 15 of the Carnegie Foundation, entitled, "Training for the Public Profession of the Law, 1921," and the proceedings at the approaching conference of Bar Associations at Washington on "Legal Education," will constitute very important matter for the study of our members during the coming year.

I submit this for information and I move that the committee be continued for the coming year.

The motion was duly seconded and carried; the report was received and filed, and the committee continued.

The President:

We passed the report of the Committee on Arbitration. I understand that Mr. Remsen is now here.

Daniel S. Remsen, of New York:

I will read a few paragraphs and omit the remainder. As you all know, the statute of arbitration has been revised within the past year, and one important case has been decided by the Court of Appeals, holding that the law is constitutional and that a contract to arbitrate is valid and enforcible, and that the contract acts as a waiver of the right of trial by jury.

Of course, our present laws, the present rules relating to arbitration, are inadequate now, and I think never were of any particular service to anybody, either the bar or the public; and the proposition has been made that we revise those laws, in view of the passage of this recent law, so that arbitration through the legal profession be made a really valuable and substantial instrument of justice.

There seems to be some reason to believe that a plan of arbitration may be devised under which litigants can be freed from technicalities, and, at the same time, through arbitration by members of the bar, have questions of law as well as of fact decided on their merits with the same accuracy and with greater speed than is now done in courts of law.

Certainly, the bar affords at least some legal talent quite equal to that on the bench. The difficulty seems to be the absence of machinery to summon that talent to the service of suitors. The arbitration law, we think, places the legal profession in a specially advantageous position for formulating a plan and rules for arbitration drawn on lines, first, to prevent unnecessary litigation; second, to give that speed of determination to necessary litigation, which makes arbitration attractive; and third, to free arbitration under such rules from baseless compromise, which in the minds of many makes the arbitration of meritorious cases so uncertain.