understand that the judges of many courts of last resort have kept in touch with it so as to assist them in reaching proper conclusions on what is now a recognized branch of the law.

The library of Congress, at the suggestion of Mr. Child, has arranged for a department "On Uniform Laws", and with separate classifications and indexes has made it easy for any student of the subject to familiarize himself with all available literature on this subject. The Bar Association of Louisiana has created a similar department in its Law Library, and in time I hope all the states will do likewise.

A movement is now under way in Canada to unify the laws of the different provinces, and to this work Mr. Charles T. Terry has given great assistance, and at the Conference of 1916 stated what had been done and what was contemplated in this regard.

Conferences have been held under the auspices of the United States Government regarding Uniform Commercial Laws for the twenty-one American Republics; and this work, if successful, will be a great help to business of all kinds in America.

Two Conferences have been held at the Hague in the effort to prepare a uniform law of bills and notes for the entire world and though the European War has prevented the full fruition of this work, it is certain to be taken up in later years and carried to a successful termination.

The tentative law prepared by these Conferences is based on the English Bills of Exchange Act and the Negotiable Instruments Law prepared by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, though in some respects, but not the most important, it follows neither.

As above stated, the only ones of the uniform laws adopted in Colorado are those relating to negotiable instruments and warehouse receipts, but I hope one of the results of this meeting may be the beginning of a campaign for the adoption of the others, particularly the Bills of Lading Act, the Transfer of Stock Act,

the Foreign Will and Probate Acts, the Marriage Evasion Act, and Foreign Acknowledgments Act; and the Pure Food Act. I believe your State has the Torrens System, though it is not the Uniform Act which has been adopted in but three States, Georgia, Utah and Virginia. In the very nature of things, uniformity is impossible on this subject, but the uniform law presents a splendid model for other states to build upon.

The integrity of the States is the integrity of each State; with the disappearance of the States, the nation would soon cease to exist, and it should be the duty of every lover of his country to work within his State for that State, and for the laws of each State as far as necessary and feasible, to be uniform with the laws of every other State. The functions of the National Government should never be so exercised as to interfere with the domestic concerns of the States, and the States should not surrender, even tacitly, any part of their rights to legislate for themselves, and, through uniformity of legislation, indirectly for the citizens of other States, but should oppose, by every means in their power the encroachments of Federal legislation. It is easy to foresee that, in the minds of many of those now high in authority in this country, the one idea is a centralized government.

If these statesmen and publicists had their way, the States would be relegated to dependence for their laws upon the Federal Congress; and who is it that wants this centralized legislation ? Who was it that for years have clamored in the halls of Congress for a national insurance law? Who was it, in defiance of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, wanted a declaration from Congress that insurance was commerce? Did the people as a whole ask for such legislation? Did the States demand it or want it? No; it was the great insurance companies, led by the president of one of them, then a member of the Senate, who demanded this legislation. And why did they want it? Simply because it would be easier for them to comply with one law, when

passed by Congress, than with the law of the several States where they intended to do business. And who was it that wanted a national incorporation law? Has any considerable number of the people asked for it? Or is it not simply the desire of the great corporations of the country? A fiction of law says that a corporation created by one State cannot do business in another, except as allowed by that State; but that principle, which I call a fiction, has been destroyed by the Federal Courts ignoring State laws. Of course, corporations which do business in many States want to be relieved of state control, of state supervision and of state taxation. Are the states prepared to surrender their sovereign independence to the money power? If not, let them see to it that the encroachment of Federal legislation goes no further, and that uniformity of legislation is brought about by the acts of the states themselves. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York vs. the City of New Orleans and others, 205 U. S., 395, if not overruled in some form by Congressional interference, will do more to protect the states against foreign corporations, and give to the states the rights to which they are entitled, than any case decided for many years. In that case, the insurance company was held liable for taxes upon promissory notes negotiated, signed and paid in Louisiana, but removed to New York by the Company, and only sent to Louisiana for collection. The effort of the insurance company to obtain the protection of the Louisiana laws in negotiating its loans and collecting its notes, and then to avoid. responsibility and pay no taxes thereon, was frowned upon by the Supreme Court, and the obligation of the company, which obtained its protection from the laws of Louisiana, to pay taxes to Louisiana, was maintained and upheld. The large insurance companies would like such legislation from Congress as will relieve them from taxes to the states, and this power of taxation will be taken away from the states if we ever have a Federal insurance law or

a Federal incorporation law. To the credit of Congress, be it said that corporation influence has never been sufficient to have it pass a law declaring insurance to be commerce, after the Supreme Court of the United States, the greatest Court in the world, has so often decided to the contrary. But we may not always have so conscientious a Congress, and it, therefore, behooves the states, through public sentiment, to take a stand against any such pernicious legislation.

What is known as the trust evil, is the greatest evil of the times, and the trust evil is a great evil, because the states, which create corporations, and without whose encircling arm and protection a corporation can do no business, are deprived of control of corporations through the usurpation of the Federal Courts, The words of Thomas Jefferson were prophetic, but the prophecy has been fulfilled:

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners, constantly working underground to mine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."

When I speak of the Federal Judiciary, I speak of the system, and not of the individual Judges, because there is no Judge within my acquaintance, either personally or through study, against whom individually a word may be said, though we of the South, in times past, could not always say this; but it is the system against which I speak, particularly as applicable to what are euphemistically termed "foreign corporations". Imperceptibly, and perhaps unintentionally, the fact is that the corporations believe they own the Federal Courts, for I do not think in one case in a thousand, where a corporation is defendent, that is brought in the state court, does the corporation allow the

case to be tried there, if it may be removed to the Federal Courts. A corporation goes into a state other than that of its creation to do its business; it receives for its officers, its agents and its property, every protection from the state. The Federal Government as such renders it none. It calls upon the state for police protection, and for protection through the criminal courts, and yet, when suit is brought against it to enforce one of its contracts, or to respond to damages for wrongs committed, it immediately takes from the state, through its courts, the right to adjudicate the issues presented in the case; and to say that this is done because the state courts will not do justice to the corporation, is a disgrace to the man who utters it. If the corporation feels it cannot get justice in the courts of a particular state, then it should stay out of that state and not do business therein; but any rights to which the foreign corporation may be entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which are paramount to any state law, no state can deprive it of, for the United States Supreme Court sits in Washington to prevent just such errors. Take the street railways of most of the cities, which are now leased or owned by foreign corporations. Without the consent of the state where they do business, they could not lay a foot of track or run a car for five minutes, and yet the corporation takes upon itself to say whether or not, when sued, it will allow the state courts to retain jurisdiction of the case, or whether it will take the case to some other forum. State control and supervision over corporations can never be complete until the Federal Courts are deprived of all jurisdiction over corporations, a jurisdiction which the Constitution does not give, and which should have never been usurped.

To what extent does the judicial power of the United States extend? Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution says: "Between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, and between a state and the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects"; and for the purposes of