464
^
The Green Bag
tures of the states refrain from acting on the "basic principle of local selfgovernment." Sooner or later the legis latures will inevitably tinker — each one probably in a different way — these uni form acts secured after so much trouble, and then will begin again the old familiar American condition of diversity of law. Already the oldest uniform state law, the Negotiable Instruments Act — only seventeen years old n — is attacked be cause it is beginning to cease to be uni form.27 Permanent uniformity of Ameri can law is utterly impossible via state legislation. This magnificent movement toward one law for the United States is doomed to a miserable failure unless it be switched to the "main line" of legal progress. There is only one route to permanent uniformity of law in the United States — an act of Congress. In no other way can one private law for our great republic be secured. When our business world, which "has long since over leaped state lines," realizes that diver sity and uncertainty of law will not actually disappear until a federal codi fication be promulgated, verily "the pressure of sentiment will cause amend ments to the federal Constitution" to secure but one system of law instead of forty-eight. Let all traditional prejudices be dis missed, and let the subject of a federal codification of private law be investi gated intelligently: it will soon be seen that the importance of the states will not be injuriously "minimized" by the promulgation of a federal code of private law. Such legislation must come eventually. When it does come, a great
debt of gratitude will be owed by every American to those who fathered and developed the movement for uniform state laws — thus revealing the fact that codification of American law was not impossible after all.
Objection 4 — A federal codified juris prudence abrogating the private law of the states is impossible without impairing the integrity of the several states. It is argued that because the United States are an enormous country equal in area to practically all Europe, federal uni formity of private law throughout the United States would not work well or be satisfactory; that uniformity of law through federal legislation or control would be an experiment, the dangers of which are unknown. This easy-going belief is entirely superficial, and is quickly refutable. Ignoring our uniform rules of naturali zation, do not the United States already possess federal uniformity of law as to bankruptcy and admiralty? Have these worked so badly that these ought to be made matters to be regu lated by 48 different state laws? On the contrary, the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in making bank ruptcy and admiralty federal matters grows more apparent, and is more highly prized than ever. Furthermore, we often feel that many of our present evils might have been avoided had more matters — such as marriage and divorce — been entrusted to federal regulation, thus securing uniformity of law thereon. Uniformity of law through federal legislation has never worked ill to the people of the United States. If we turn to history, we find that "It was first passed in 1896. •» Hening. "The Uniform Negotiable Instruments the size of a country does not derogate Law: is it producing uniformity and certainty?" from the value of uniformity of law. 59 Penn. Law Review, 471 (1911). See Judge The vast Roman Empire found uni Mack's article, 6 Illinois Law Review, 62.
