Uniformity

One John Hemphill, writing in the May American Mercury, criticized the tendency of the several states to adopt uniform laws. The work of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, he says, "was done, completed, admirably performed" when it drew up the Uniform Sales Act, the Uniform Conditional Sales Act, the Uniform Warehouse Receipt Act, the Uniform Bills of Lading Act, and the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act. After stating that the Uniform Stock Transfer Act was "perhaps still excusable," Mr. Hemphill added: "But then came the Uniform Partnership, Acknowledgments, Aeronautics, Desertion and Non-Support Acts --and then a real fever, a mad desire to make everything uniform.* There followed a wholesale production of nonsense, and the plant is still in 100% operation. . . . Mr. Madison's ideas of the rights of the States are still worth fighting for; it is not yet futile to contend against Federal larceny by constitutional amendment, and it is still worth while to give battle against the half-brother of Federal larceny, the pressure for uniformity."

That the trend of popular feeling is away from "Federal larceny" is evidenced by the recent defeat of the Child Labor Amendment (TIME, Jan. 5 et seq). Yet there will always be strong-pressure for uniformity in state laws when economic injustice results from diversity. Examples in point are the overlapping inheritance tax laws of various states--which are so burdensome that if a man lives in one state and keeps his securities in a second, owns stock in a corporation of a third, which owns property in still others, etc., the tax on his estate may actually be more than the total value of the estate. Under such conditions, legal uniformity or at least .reciprocity is sensible.

Indictments

Attorney General Sargent has taken steps to have determined by the Supreme Court of the U. S. the mooted question of whether a criminal case can be thrown out of court because of the presence in the Grand Jury room of an official sten ographer to report the indictment proceedings. This point will be raised as the result of a writ of error in the case of George A. Storrs and others, charged with using the mails to defraud, Which was dismissed in the District Court of Utah because of the presence in the Grand Jury room of an official stenographer. Some state courts have held that official stenographers have a right to be present in the Grand Jury room while others have held that their presence invalidated an indictment.

The result of the present case is doubtful because, recently, the Gov ernment's case against Fall and the Dohenys was quashed because of the presence in the Grand Jury room of an Assistant Attorney General. Is a stenographer as illegal in a Grand Jury room as an Assistant Attorney General?