made), based on legal proceedings there pending to have him declared of unsound mind:

shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed thereto.

SEC. 4. [Procedure.] Whenever the executive authority of any state demands of the executive authority of this state, any fugitive within the purview of Section 3 and produces a copy of the commitment, decree or other judicial process and proceedings, certified as authentic by the Governor or Chief Magistrate of the state whence the person so charged has fled, with an affidavit made before a proper officer showing the person to be such a fugitive, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of this state to cause him to be apprehended and secured, if found in this state, and to cause immediate notice of the apprehension to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the apprehension, the fugitive may be discharged. All costs and expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, maintaining and transmitting such fugitive to the state making such demand, shall be paid by such state. Any agent so appointed who receives the fugitive into his custody shall be empowered to transmit him to the state from which he has fled. The executive authority of this state is hereby vested with the power, on the application of any person interested, to demand the return to this state of any fugitive within the purview of this act.

SEC. 5. [Limitation.] Any proceedings under this act shall be begun within one year after the flight referred to in this act. SEC. 6. [Interpretation.] This act shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.

SEC. 7. [Repeal.] All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.

SUMMARY OF REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.

(For full Report see AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL for July, pp. 467-496.)

(1) The conference of bar associations upon the inquiry, among others, "How can bar associations help to raise the standards of the profession?" was alluded to in the full report as diminishing the burden on this committee of so extended a correspondence as it had been obliged to maintain in the past.

(2) Nevertheless, it issued a questionnaire which was published in The Docket and the information thereby secured was analyzed in the report. Wider publicity was reported with respect to the canons of the Association.

(3) A questionnaire was also addressed to the law examiners of the different states intended to elicit information as to whether the study of ethics was a condition or requirement for admission to the Bar and whether the canons had been made a norm of conduct to which attorneys in their practice would be expected by the courts to conform.

(4) The committee also referred to two important publications appearing during the past year: that of Mr. Julius Henry Cohen, entitled, "The Law, Business or Profession?" and "Cases and Other Authorities on Legal Ethics," by George P. Costigan, Jr., professor of law in the Northwestern University.

(5) It also published an analysis, with its approval, of lectures before the Harvard School of Law by the Hon. Francis Joseph Swayze, LL. D., of New Jersey, which will repay a study by all law-school instructors.

(6) The report then proceeded, in Part V, to record the activities of various committees on discipline, and especial reference was made to the functions of the Committee on Character in the First Department, of which Judge Leventritt is Chairman.

(7) The sixth part of the report was taken up with the clinical work of the New York County Lawyers' Association Committee

on Professional Ethics, which has been promulgating answers to questions of propriety of professional conduct for some years, to which great publicity has been given.

It is not unlikely that the work of the American Bar Association's committee of this nature as well as those of some of the state bar associations may be centralized in the activities of the New York County Lawyers' committee, which has a large membership, easily locally convenable and whose answers to queries have acquired an authority due to their inherent reasonableness and breadth of view.

(8) The seventh part of the report is taken up with the discussion of the Committee on the Unlawful Practice of the Law, which has done so much to elevate professional standards in New York State.

(9) The committee then dealt with the subject of certain tentative canons for the judiciary, which were recommended to the Judiciary Section of the Association for consideration.

(10) Certain features of improper solicitation of employment by attorneys as affected by recent amendments of the penal law of the State of New York are also covered, and the report concluded with a reference to the actual incorporation in the statute books of the State of Washington of an act to the effect that the "Code of Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association . . be deemed the standard of ethics for the guidance of members of the Bar" of that state.

HENRY WYNANS JESSUP, Chairman.

REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NOTEWORTHY CHANGES IN STATUTE LAW

FOR THE YEAR 1917.

To the Members of the American Bar Association:

Amendments, revisions and consolidations of existing laws are more noticeable this year than new legislation. This indicates not only the constant need of patching up laws hastily enacted at previous sessions, but also a commendable effort to clear up the statute book by eliminating obsolete laws and making more accessible and intelligible to layman and lawyer the statutes which are still operative. The revision of the Pennsylvania probate laws is particularly interesting. The latter is important not only as a consolidating act, but as a comprehensive statement of the tendency of modern changes in our laws dealing with the distribution of decedents' estates. It is based on the work of a commission of which Judge Gest of the Philadelphia Orphans' Court was chairman, and it indicates the wisdom of entrusting such work to men equipped for it not only by knowledge and experience, but also by an enthusiastic desire to render service to the public and to the profession. Piece-meal revision of a large number of laws in California indicates a similar effort to improve the form and phraseology of the statutes as well as their content and reflects much credit on the official draftsman connected with the legislature of that state. On the whole, the legislation of the year suggests that legislators are pausing, after the deluge of new laws enacted during the past few years, to readjust details before attempting new invasions of the common law.

The legislation providing for supervision of the practice of the law contains a warning for judges and lawyers. It probably indicates that the public is prepared to participate more actively in disciplining members of the Bar for improper practices. Not only are lawyers' licenses made annual in two states, but the power to refuse a renewal of the license practically transfers from

the courts to a state board the power of disbarment. There is irony in the provision in one state that the cost of disbarment proceedings is to be paid from a fund produced by the fees which the lawyers pay for their licenses.

There is less war legislation than might have been expected. Congress, of course, has enacted little else. War legislation in the states consists generally of acts reorganizing the state militia to conform to the National Defence Act, providing allowances to enlisted men or their dependents, establishing a kind of moratorium in favor of men in the military service, setting aside labor or other laws thought to interfere with the prompt production of war supplies and generally increasing the Governor's power to use the resources of the state to maintain public order and safety or to assist in the prosecution of the war. It is interesting to compare the extensive war provisions in the statutes of some of the states with the total lack of such legislation in adjoining states. One of the advantages of our federal system is the experience gained by all the states from governmental experiments of pioneer states.

In examining the federal war legislation it is often difficult to determine whether Congress is granting to the President powers vested by the constitution in Congress or is only ratifying the exercise by the President of war powers which under the constitution are vested in him. As yet there has been little attempt to analyze the constitutional situation in order to determine whether the executive department is asking Congress for powers which Congress may grant or withhold or is asking Congress to accept a portion of the responsibility for the exercise of war powers which the executive department possesses under the constitution.

It is noticeable that Congress, in legislation like that regulating the possession and sale of explosives and their ingredients, no longer limits its regulation to interstate commerce in such articles, but directly regulates their possession or sale within a state. We have become accustomed to indirect regulation by Congress under commerce and tax clauses (e. g., the grain standards act, and the cotton futures tax), but we have in the war legislation interesting illustrations of direct regulation of matters heretofore regarded as within the jurisdiction of the states.