The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-10-11
ATTORNEY ARvIYE,S PAPER.
Read at the Annual Meeting of the State Board of Trade, on the Needed Uniformity of Laws in CO,nme ciaI Business.

Some notes by E. F, Arvine, member of the chamber of commerce, for the of the laws were read at the meeting of the state board of trade by the secretary, T, Attwater Barnes. MT. Arvine was unable to be present. The notes were as follows;
 q suppose there is scarcely any bus mess man who has not at sometime felt the inconvenience of lack of a uniform system of commercial law in this coun- try. To large wholesale houses, manu- facturers, bankers, this inconvenience must not iEfrequently be very great. A ( )mmercial house in New York has busi- ness in Connecticut that gives rise to local controversies and involves legal questions. Its local adviser can be of little or no assistance to it. He may know in general way what the law of Connecticut is, but he cannot be depend ed upon for anything like an accurate opinion. To be sure of what he is about the merchant must have legal ad- vice in every state where a question is likely to arise. The law concerning the commonest things, the most ordinary transactions, differs in the different states. Thus, the law as to what is negotiable paper, and what are the rights and liabilities of endorsers, differ in almost every state, so to as to when a demand note is overdue, so too as to when a note outlaws-and other obli- gations, the days of grace, as every banker knows, are very different in the different jurisdictions. In Connecticut an open and visible change of posses sion must accompany every sale of per- sonal property or the sale will be ab solutely void against the creditors of the vendor In New York and Massa- chusetts the want of a change of pos session only throws the burden of proof upon the purchaser that the transaction is fair The laws of descent of intestate estate differ very widely in the different states. So, too, the insolvent laws h New York the insolvent debtor may prefer certain creditors. In Connecti- cut such preferences are fraudulent. In a thousand ways the law, both written and unwritten, differs.
 It seems almost as if the points of difference were more numerous than the points of unity. A man in New York is a uncertain as to what the legal cons euuence of any business trans action in Boston and Chicago is, as if the transaction was in France. A manufacturer. whose business spreads over the United States, has, so far as the legal result is concerned, his busi- ness in forty-four different foreign countries The United States is the only great nation in the civilized world that has not system of commercial law common to Its entire territory.
 It is very much to be regretted that the able men who framed the constitu- tion did not insert in 1t a provision giving congress power to pass a uni form system of commercial law. In the days when the constitution was adopted. a journey from Boston to New York was one of more difficulty than that from New York to San Francisco is now. The colonies were more foreign to each other than Canada is to the United States at present. It was impos- sihle to adopt such a provision then, impossible to see it's future necessity The idea of local independence and local sovereignty was infinitely more important than commercial unity. It was impossible to see that steam ships, railroads, telegraphs, commer- ;aJ i,Ntn nd in1 ties would obliterate state lines and centralize us in spite of any constitu- tion. centralze us far more than the constitution and laws ever can. Com mercially, state lines have long since ceased to exist. In all repects, except law and politics, they are purely imag- mary lines. In commerce we are as much one people as the French and Germans. Why not like them have national system of commercial law?
 In recent years the German parla- ment entrusted to it's law commission the work of preparing a common com mercial code for the entire German en- pire It is now complete and in some dozen volumes, and is the most scien- tifically arranged code that has ever been made.
 Even the Canadians are ahead of us in this particular. Under the act of union, the Dominion of Canada has adopted a uniform system of commer- cial law. The commercial law is the same in Halifax, Quebec, Toronto and Victoria. Our different systems of com mercial law belong really to a by-gone az We have outlived them. They are a hindrance and stumbling block in the way 0" UT progress.
 say all this by way of introduc- ton. although it i perhaps a little because I think it will appear that there is no other way of unifying our law than by giving congress power to do it. and because there seems to be fear even to make a suggestion that this be accomplished through the fed eral government,
 A recent writer in New York, after showing very clearly the necessity of a common system of commercial law, says, the idea that it is to be accom- plished by an amendment of the con- stitution is not for a moment to be tolerated.
 IT is an invasion of state sovereignty and a dangerous power to entrust to the federal government.
 If is hard to see how the mere power of making commercial law uniform can be dangerous to any community or any individual. It is true that local self