The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-08-30
HI9 tNIHIJTIION VF- THE I4EI " '' The Meeting at Detroit-What tho Com mission Is-rhe Work It Has Done and May Do-The Need of Such Work,
Detroit, Aug. 2S, l

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER
 The commission for the unification of the laws was in session here yesterday and adjourned this morning, Before saying anything about its work it may be we'll to make 1t clear what this com mission is It is unfortunate that the able men who framed the constitution of the United States did not insert in it a provision giving congress the power to pass for the whole country a uniform system of commercial law, or, rather, it was unfortunate that it was impossi- ble to do so. The result is that the United States are the only great nation in the civilized world that has not a system of commercial law common to it's entire territory.
 In the days when the constitution was adopted the journey from Boston to New York was one of more difficulty than that from New York to San Fran cisco is now. The colonies were more
 
 to the United States at present. The characteristics of the people and the usages of business furnish now no req son why Boston, New York, Chicago and New Orleans should be governed by different systems of commercial law, that is, no reason where the customs, language and modes of business are the same, why the commercial law should be essentially different. What reason is there for instance, why what is a ne- gotiable note should differin Massachu- setts from what it is in New York or Illinois, or why what the essential req uisites of a sale of personal property are should differ even as between Mas sachusetts and Connecticut? Yet so it is.
 Commercially, State lines in this coun- try have long since ceased to exist. h commerce we are as much one people as France and the German empire, and why not, like them, have one sytsem of civil, or at least commercial, law? The answer is, there is no power that can create for us any such system of law, The whole matter is beyond the juris- diction of the federal government. Ths differences in our commercial laws are certainly out of harmony with the sen timent common to Americans nowa- days, that America is their country and not the States of which they happen tc be citizens, a sentiment quite the re- verse of that prevalent at the time oi the adoption of the Constitution. The feeling is growing that they are out oi keeping with our progress, and that Il , is an American system of law rather than State system of law under whicr we ought to live.
 The commission for the unifcation o1 the law is an outgrowth of this feeling The Empire State took the lead in this reform, as it has in law reform general | ly. It is to the State of New York that | we owe the so-called American prac tice, which abolshes arbitrary forms and the distinction between law ant equity, and reduces complaints and an swers to simple statement of facts. In 1890 the legislature of New York passed an act appointing a commission for the unification of the law of the diff ferent States, which was to meet ant . cooperate with similar commission. , ! rom OIner states. lHlS COulIIllSSlOi wrote letters to the governors of tht various States suggesting the appoint ment of such commissions, and in tht same year the matter was brought tt s the attention of the American Bar as sociation This association appointed ; , committee of one from each State anc } Territory to urge the appointment Q 7 these commissioners, and to assist i, having the laws recommended by tnt bcommission adopted by the various States. The result is that twenty-sever , States and one Territory have appoint , ed commissioners. The State of Con necticut passed an act in 1892 providing : that the governor appoint three com missioners and that they be authorized to spend for their expenses not nor ? than $1,000 year Governor Morri appointed E. Henry Hyde, Lyman D Brewster and E. P. Arvine members o
 the commission from Connecticut. l The commissioners appointed by tht . various states have held several meet
 ings, the first being at Saratoga il
 the summer of 1892. Their progress ha l been rather slow, as they were unwil
 ling to recommend any important legis
 lation until a considerable number O
 the states had appointed commission , ] CTS. They, however, adopted and rec | commended a common form for th | acknowledgment of deeds and a com
 mon method for the authorization o
 such acknowledgements; also uni
 form law relative to the sealingof deeds also an act relative to the execution
 of wills, providing that a will executed iii the mode prescribed by the law o Q the testators domicile, should be deem ed in the other states to be legall. e executed; also an act providing that ; \ will probated in one state, may b, :. proved in another, by filing an exempli 3 fled copy of the will and the record
 probating the same; also law abol ishing days of grace upon notes ant | bills; also a uniform standard fo . | weights and measures; also an ac . | concerning marriage, providing tha
 some ceremony or written evidence signed by the parties, be required t. render a marriage valid. This act wa ! intended more especially for the state where the so-called common law mar ! | riage exists, that is a marriage b, l agreement of the parties without an!
 ceremony, civil or religious. The ac E further provided that certificate o
 marriage or the written evidence sign ; ed by the parties be recorded.
 = Many of these acts have alrea dV hoe,