Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the recent Federal Trade Commission Act, along with the decisions of the Supreme Court supporting control of commerce, commercial relations in the United States are in the process of being placed gradually under the Federal government. It seems to be merely a matter of time until the United States will be in a position to establish complete and uniform commercial regulations affecting all business and individuals engaged in commercial transactions involving more than one state. According to the theory of such men as President Roosevelt and Senator Root, the United States Constitution should be expanded through legislation and interpretation as the needs of time demand, and those things should be nationalized in which national control seems necessary. At any rate, it has been determined by continued practice that the Constitution may grow and expand without formal amendment, and that Federal powers may be extended by the process of interpretation to include Federal regulation of matters formerly belonging to the states.

In addition to the Federal laws which center primarily around commerce and business relations among the states, the power of the national government has been strengthened and extended by the passage of acts relative to subjects foreign to action by Congress a decade or two ago. The Federal government, with the exception of time of war, formerly raised its money through tariff and internal duties, but the enactment of the income tax and inheritance tax acts broadened the power of the national government to raise revenue. The control of food and drugs, at one time considered a matter of local control, if not entirely an individual matter, passed to a certain extent into the hands of the central government when the Federal Food and Drug Act, as well as the Meat Inspection Act, went into effect. The Bank Act of 1863, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Postal Savings Bank Act of 1910, together with the Farm Loan Act of 1916, have resulted in placing the Federal government in control of an extended banking business.

Another type of national legislation is that which aims, by granting subsidies or by rendering other assistance, to stimulate action on the part of the states in handling affairs which heretofore have been regarded only of local concern. Examples of such acts are the Morrill Acts which provide for Agricultural Education and the Vocational Education Acts, as well as the Federal Good Roads and Public Health Acts. The acts which provide for subsidies affect the relation between the nation and the states to a greater extent than is likely to be the case in Federal legislation, which offers no financial aid. Subsidies carry with them requirements and obligations on the part of the state, which accepts assistance while the administration of the particular activity is usually placed, to a certain degree, at least, under the control of the nation. The acts to which reference is here made are examples of national legislation, which within the last few decades and especially the last decade have deviated from the course originally prescribed by the Constitution. They serve to show the general tendency of the national government to extend its power and to cut across powers formerly exercised by the states.1

UNIFORMITY IN STATE LAWS

One of the chief difficulties which confront all federal systems of government is the diversity in laws and their administration, resulting from the fact that many matters of general concern are dealt with by numerous legislatures, courts, and administrative bodies. To obviate this difficulty some federal constitutions grant to the national government the authority to establish uniform codes of laws covering the fundamental relations of general interest. In the United States, where important powers are reserved to the states for the regulation and control of the primary interests of life,

J. A. Lapp, Important Federal Laws (B. F. Bowen & Co., 1917); Paul H. Douglas, "A System of Federal Grants-in-Aid," Political Science Quarterly, no. 2, pp. 255-271, and no. 4, pp. 522-544.

such as the legal relations arising out of contracts, property, torts, crimes, domestic relations, and corporations, many conflicts continually arise and commercial dealings are hampered by a variety of regulations. This condition would have become intolerable were it not that all but one of the states of the United States adopted the common law and thereby developed a practice of securing a considerable degree of uniformity by deliberately adopting the same laws and by the courts of one state following those of another in interpreting similar common law and statutory provisions. Owing to this practice, constitutions and statutes show evidence of continuous copying until a provision with only slight modifications is incorporated into the law of all of the states. Again the courts in the application and interpretation of statutes have more frequently made it a practice to follow precedents and thus to be guided by court decisions in other states. Thus, states like Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, through competent and capable justices, have rendered decisions which have guided the highest courts in other states of the Union. While these tendencies have been largely responsible for such uniformity as prevails in the law of the several states, there have been some deliberate attempts to secure uniformity. For example, efforts have been made to frame model statutes suitable for adoption in any state on such matters as civil service, workmen's compensation, and public-utility regulation. But the most noteworthy attempt in this direction has been inaugurated through the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws authorized by the American Bar Association and national conferences on uniform laws held by this body. As a result of the efforts of these commissioners, a group of important model statutes have been drafted.

The first act drafted by the commission was an Acknowledgments of Written Instruments Act in 1892.1 This

1 The data with regard to uniform acts and the legislation adopting same are based upon the volume prepared by Charles Thaddeus Terry on Uniform State Laws in the United States (Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1920).

act has not been accepted by the state legislatures. About the same time there was drafted an Act Relating to Wills Executed Without the State. This act was

adopted by five states and by Alaska. One of the most important acts from the standpoint of uniformity of state laws was the preparation in 1890 by the commissioners of a Negotiable Instruments Act. Fifty jurisdictions, including states, territories, and insular possessions, have adopted this act. In 1906 a Uniform Sales Act was prepared. This act has since been adopted in eighteen states and Alaska. At the same time, the commissioners submitted a Warehouse Receipts Act which has since been enacted into law in forty-two states. An effort to secure a Uniform Annulment of Marriage and Divorce Act has not been so favorably received by the states, but has tended to secure a beginning toward uniformity. A Uniform Bills of Lading Act completed in 1909 has been adopted in about twenty states. Other acts which have been prepared and adopted by some of the states relate to Stock Transfers, Child Labor, Marriages and Marriage Licenses, Partnerships, Foreign Acknowledgments, Limited Partnerships, Conditional Sales, and Fraudulent Convey

Drafts have also been prepared for a group of acts which the state legislatures have not yet accepted, as follows: Desertion and Nonsupport, Cold Storage, Workmen's Compensation, Probate of Foreign Wills, and Land Registration, the last named being an adaptation of the Torrens System.1

Despite all of the efforts to secure uniformity of laws among the several states marked diversities still prevail in certain branches of the law. In many instances differences in conditions warrant the application of diverse rules but in others the differences result in serious conflicts which the Federal courts must adjust. The intermingling of the affairs of one state with those of another in commerce,

1 For the texts of these acts, with other valuable information, consult C. T. Terry, Uniform State Laws.

finance, travel, and a multitude of business dealings seems to require either more extensive uniformity through Federal laws or through the adoption of uniform acts by the states. x SOME COMPARISONS WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND SWITZERLAND

Canada. Some of the important principles of federal government may be illustrated by comparisons with the government of Canada. The framers of the Canadian federation followed a different plan of procedure from that of the United States in certain respects. In the first place, all legislative powers are distributed between the Federal Parliament on the one hand and the provincial legislatures on the other. The British North America Act does not contain a series of limitations on legislative power such as is ordinarily comprised within the bills of rights of American constitutions. There is no realm of protection to the individual or to property interests, which constitutes the scope of civil liberty in America. This characteristic is referred to as the omnipotence of Canadian legislatures within their respective spheres, and is frequently commended as one of the best features of the Canadian government.1

A second feature which distinguishes the Constitution of the Dominion from that of the United States is the possession by the federal government of the veto power over provincial legislation. By virtue of Sections 56 and 90 of the Canadian Constitution, a copy of every provincial act must be sent to the Governor-General, who may within two years after the receipt thereof disallow the act. This device was intended as a check to the abuse of provincial authority, and was regarded as a method of protecting the individual against unjust interference with vested rights. The veto power is now seldom exercised.

1 Cf. C. G. Haines, "Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada," Harvard Law Review (April, 1915), vol. xxviii, p. 565, from which this account is condensed.