P'er

language of your bill is singularly felicitous; it is more clear, concise, less stiff and artificial than that of our Bills of Exchange Act, and in this respect (one by no means unimportant) your draft is an improvement on our act." haps the most valuable testimony to the excellence of the proposed act, as Judge Brewster shows, is that of Mr. Randolph, who has recently published a work of two thousand nine hundred and eighty-two pages, on the subject of Commercial Paper, who states that a large portion of his work would be unnecessary if a revised code on negotiable instruments were adopted similar to that of England. Another eminent authority quoted by Judge Brewster, Professor Huffeut, in his work on negotiable instruments, published in February, 1898, says: "It presents the best statement available of the results of the English and American judicial decisions.”

In order to test the sentiment of the profession in this state on the proposed act, copies of it were sent to various members of the bar in different counties, and criticisms invited. The committee regret that they were not favored with a large number of replies; but among those received there were a number that suggested objections, though the general sentiment was one of approval. One prominent lawyer in Pittsburg thought that the object of the bill in seeking uniformity would be defeated by reason of the many different tribunals of last resort that would sooner or later be called upon to interpret its various sections. This objection goes to the very foundation of the whole plan for attaining uniformity. The only reply that can be made is that it is not probable that there will be many discordant decisions in the interpretation of a statute like this, because, for the most part, it embodies the results of decisions that have gradually crystalized into law of very general sanction among all the

states.

It is further specifically objected to on the ground of uncertainty in some of its provisions, e. g., in section 103, art. 7, and in sections 29, 50, 55 and 39, as being obscure or otherwise defective. The existence of these defects, if after

consideration they should be deemed to be defects, does not affect any vital object of the bill, and could be eliminated by slight change of language. A more important objection is that directed against a change of the law of this state, so as to make instruments negotiable containing a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, or giving the holder an election to require something to be done in lieu of payment of money, as set forth in sections 5 and 6. The Committee are unable to see why these changes should work any inconvenience to the community. Indeed, the removal of the distinctions would seem to tend rather towards greater ease and simplicity. As the law exists at present there is a very serious divergence in what constitutes a negotiable instrument in some of the states, and the sweeping away of such distinctions as those named, while perhaps constituting a great innovation upon the law merchant, would injure no one and aid many.

It cannot be expected that any statute can be drawn covering so large and important a field that will meet with approval everywhere and in all its parts. There must be some yielding on every side to attain the common purpose. Even if the objections to the proposed act were more serious than they have been shown to be, is it not to the greater advantage of this Commonwealth, with the vast interests of its citizens reaching out beyond its borders, to have a system of law relating to these necessary tools of business, negotiable instruments, that coincides with that of all the other leading business communities on the Atlantic seaboard?

The committee do not urge any hasty action. In all probability there will be no opportunity to enact the proposed law into a statute for nearly two years; but in the light of what has been shown of its practical advantage, it does seem wise that the Association should make proper provision for awakening public interest in the subject, so that the next legislature will be ready to act upon it intelligently. It is proper to add that the bill was introduced by Senator Weller, at the session that has just closed, but not at the sug

gestion of this committee. Moreover, the committee did not feel warranted in taking any steps in advocacy of the measure, as by the terms of their appointment their duty was confined to consideration and report. It is interesting to note, however, that the bill passed the Senate, and failed in the House, apparently only for want of consideration.

Taking up the other proposed acts:

1. An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states for the acknowledgment and execution of written instruments.

Apparently the only important change the enactment of this law would make in Pennsylvania is contained in the second section, which makes it unnecessary to the validity of a married woman's acknowledgment that it should be made separate and apart from her husband.

It will be observed that the passage of this act will not prevent the use of forms now valid under the law of this state. It has been adopted in Massachusetts, Michigan and Iowa. The forms given have been adopted by statute in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and New Mexico.

Whether or not it be wise to remove the restriction upon the acknowledgments of married women, it is evidently in line with the entire current of legislation in this state, relating to married women. Since the old theory of the law that the wife is subject to her husband, has given way before the advance of modern theories of equality, it would be more logical to remove this restriction which after all is in practical affairs an empty formality.

2. An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states relating to the sealing of deeds and other written instruments.

The passage of this act would render the law of this state less liberal than it now is. Any flourish or mark, however irregular or inconsiderable, is a good seal, provided the parties intended it to be a seal. Lorah vs. Nissley, 156 Pa.

consideration they should be deemed to be defects, does not affect any vital object of the bill, and could be eliminated by slight change of language. A more important objection is that directed against a change of the law of this state, so as to make instruments negotiable containing a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, or giving the holder an election to require something to be done in lieu of payment of money, as set forth in sections 5 and 6. The Committee are unable to see why these changes should work any inconvenience to the community. Indeed, the removal of the distinctions would seem to tend rather towards greater ease and simplicity. As the law exists at present there is a very serious divergence in what constitutes a negotiable instrument in some of the states, and the sweeping away of such distinctions as those named, while perhaps constituting a great innovation upon the law merchant, would injure no one and aid

many.

There must be

It cannot be expected that any statute can be drawn covering so large and important a field that will meet with approval everywhere and in all its parts. some yielding on every side to attain the common purpose. Even if the objections to the proposed act were more serious than they have been shown to be, is it not to the greater advantage of this Commonwealth, with the vast interests of its citizens reaching out beyond its borders, to have a system of law relating to these necessary tools of business, negotiable instruments, that coincides with that of all the other leading business communities on the Atlantic seaboard?

The committee do not urge any hasty action. In all probability there will be no opportunity to enact the proposed law into a statute for nearly two years; but in the light of what has been shown of its practical advantage, it does seem wise that the Association should make proper provision for awakening public interest in the subject, so that the next legislature will be ready to act upon it intelligently. It is proper to add that the bill was introduced by Senator Weller, at the session that has just closed, but not at the sug

gestion of this committee. Moreover, the committee did not feel warranted in taking any steps in advocacy of the measure, as by the terms of their appointment their duty was confined to consideration and report. It is interesting to note, however, that the bill passed the Senate, and failed in the House, apparently only for want of consideration.

Taking up the other proposed acts:

1. An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states for the acknowledgment and execution of written instruments.

Apparently the only important change the enactment of this law would make in Pennsylvania is contained in the second section, which makes it unnecessary to the validity of a married woman's acknowledgment that it should be made separate and apart from her husband.

It will be observed that the passage of this act will not prevent the use of forms now valid under the law of this state. It has been adopted in Massachusetts, Michigan and Iowa. The forms given have been adopted by statute in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and New Mexico.

Whether or not it be wise to remove the restriction upon the acknowledgments of married women, it is evidently in line with the entire current of legislation in this state, relating to married women. Since the old theory of the law that the wife is subject to her husband, has given way before the advance of modern theories of equality, it would be more logical to remove this restriction which after all is in practical affairs an empty formality.

2. An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states relating to the sealing of deeds and other written instruments.

The passage of this act would render the law of this state less liberal than it now is. Any flourish or mark, however irregular or inconsiderable, is a good seal, provided the parties intended it to be a seal. Lorah vs. Nissley, 156 Pa.