OCR Text |
Show -4- The combined legislative powers of Congress and of the several States permit a wide range of permutations and combinations for governmental action, Un- til very recently these potentialities have teen left largely unexplored. Political energy has been expended on sterile controversy over supposedly exclusive alternatives instead of utilized for fashioning new instruments. adapted to new stiuations. Our rapid industrialization is generating an in sistent variety of interaction in the affairs of the several States. The ex- clusiveness of the traditional choioe in governmental intervention is becom- ing correspondingly inadequate. Creativeness is called for to devise a great variety of legal alternatives to cope with the diverse forms of interstate interests. transcend State lines. Since 1890 the national Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promoted uniformity of State legislation on sub jects beyond the power of Congress and where, from the nature of the case. diversity of treatment is an interstate evil. By this method a vast domain of the commercial transactions of the country which do not respect State lines are sought to be brought under common legal control. 16 The scheme of reciprocal legislation has been resorted to whereby the capacity of one State to harm or advantage another, when conflicting interests need adjust- ment, is exercised by creating immunities or handicaps conditioned upon like treatment by sister States. 17 The importance of a policy of common action in certain fields of legal control is again reflected in the conscious practice of courts to base decisions in these fields on grounds of needed harmony between jurisdictions legally independent of each other.lS Conference Republic, 253, Program of Croatian Peasant Party (Feb. 25. 1925) 120 Nation, 22U' l6Thus 51 jurisdictions have passed the Uniform Negotiable Instruments. State Laws in the United States (1920). See also Ilbert, Unification of Commercial Law (1920) 2 Journ. Comp. Leg. Pt. 1, p. 77« 17See Kane v. Hew Jersey (1916) 242 U. S, 160, 167-168, 37 Sup. Ct. 30. per Brandeis, J.s "The Maryland law contained a reciprocal provision by which non-residents whose cars are duly registered in their own States are given, for a limited period, free use of the highways in return for ««!«_ privileges granted to residents of Maryland. Such a provision promotes con- venience of owners and prevents the relative hardship of having to pay the full registration fees for a brief use of the highways. It has become common in state legislation*' ,..„> See, e.g., the Act of Ccmg. of Mar. 3, 1917 (39 »»*;•* ^ ^2)'^° strued in King v. District of Columbia (1922, CA.D.CO 277 Fed. 562. In- surance and the control of foreign corporations offer familiar occasions for this type of legislation. See Lindsay, Reciprocal Legislation U91O; 25 Pol. Sol. Quart. U35« , IV „ TT „ \ on \ nz 1.1, 18See Queen Ins. Co. v. Globe Ins. Co. (192^) 263 U. S. 1*67, U93, UU |