of Morals" upon which all laws should be founded. While it is desirable that salutary laws should be enacted, experience teaches us that no human law can be enforced which does not have the moral support of the noble Christian men and women of the land. From the nature of things it is well nigh impossible to secure anything like uniformity of our divorce laws through the Legislatures. While I am not in favor of the Federal government encroaching upon the rights of the State, yet I am thoroughly convinced that the only effective way by which we can deal with this subject is to secure the enactment of a national divorce law which I think might be properly classed among the subjects contemplated by the general welfare clause of the Constitution of the United States.

If it should be determined that the power of Congress to enact a law of this character is not implied from the provision of the Constitution to which I refer, it would be an easy matter to secure an amendment to the Constitution which would fix this subject beyond cavil, but which of course would have to be submitted to the several States for their adoption.

Divorces are granted in many States for the most trivial causes, and in my opinion the time has come when Christian people of all denominations should demand the enactment of a national divorce law. These and many other matters will, no doubt, be considered by Congress in the near future.

Some have sought to create the impression that the Federal courts are hostile to the interest of the people of the State, but there is no foundation for such contention. These courts belong to the people of the State as much as the State courts, and as already stated, were created for the express purpose of affording to citizens of the various States facilities by which they might have their controversies speedily and satisfactorily determined.

The judges as well as the officials of the Federal courts are residents of the State in which the courts are held, and the juries are selected by jury commissioners, the members of which are residents and belong to different political par

ties, charged with the duty of selecting true and lawful men regardless of political or local influence. Under this system no non-resident defendant should be compelled to try his case in the State court when it is made to satisfactorily appear that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in that forum, and this is especially true, in view of the fact that the Federal court possesses every facility for giving both the plaintiff and defendant a fair and impartial trial.

The removal of the case from the Federal to the State court is an assurance to the defendant that his rights are not to be affected by local influence or prejudice; while on the other hand, the plaintiff has the satisfaction of knowing that his cause is to be tried by a jury composed of citizens of the State where he resides, thus equalizing any differences that may exist at the time of the institution of the proceedings.

While some are inclined to speak of lawyers in a contemptuous manner, it is highly gratifying to know that in the future, as in the past, these great problems cannot be solved without the aid of those good and true men who have done so much as members of our profession toward creating a system of laws which are as enduring as the "eternal hills," by which we are surrounded on this occasion. In every crisis in our history as a nation, the lawyers have come to the rescue. American history is replete with the struggle and sacrifices that have been made by these distinguished men who have spent their lives at the bar and in legislative halls contending for those great principles, the establishment of which involved the peace, happiness and the general welfare of the people. To this class of men we owe a lasting debt of gratitude. Without their aid it would have been impossible for us to have established the splendid system of jurisprudence which commands the respect and admiration of the libertyloving people of every clime. I know of no class of individuals whose influence is more potent than that of the legal profession, and it is a matter of pride to us to know that with few exceptions, they have stoutly contended for the right and against wrong and oppression.

Let us do all in our power to sustain both the Federal and State courts in their efforts to administer the law. We are all officers of the law, and I assure you that those of us who are called upon to preside over the courts need the active and hearty co-operation of our brethren in the discharge of our duties.

THE HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.

BY JOSEPH M. HILL, Chief Justice of Arkansas.

In 1778 the New Jersey Assembly passed a resolution calling the attention of Congress to the regulation of trade by the several States and the many difficulties and embarrassments involved on account of the varying regulations, and expressed the opinion that the sole and exclusive power of regulating trade with foreign States ought to be vested in Congress.

In 1781 Dr. Witherspoon presented a resolution in Congress declaring that "it is indispensably necessary that the United States, in Congress assembled, should be vested with the right of superintending the commercial regulations of every State

In 1784 Congress proposed to the States that a grant of power to regulate trade be given Congress, and received response from only four of them*.

In 1785 a Committee of Congress reported that, in its opinion, "Congress ought to possess the soled exclusive power of regulating trade, as well with foreign nations as between the States." The Articles of Confederation gave Congress the exclusive control over the regulation of trade with the Indians, but did not give it any power to regulate trade with foreign nations or among the States other than such power as grew out of the inhibitions on the States. The States were prohibited from laying duties which would interfere with treaty stipulations with foreign nations, and the people of each State were guaranteed free ingress and regress to and from other States and the enjoyment in each State of all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants of the respective States. In this way a limited regulation of trade, through the treaty-making power, with foreign nations, was conferred on Congress, but Congress was wholly powerless to perform its treaties, for it could not enforce an obliga

*1st Curtis History Constitution of the United States, page 334.