the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law was recommended for enactment to the different States of the Union by the Conference of Commissioners. The first State to adopt the same was New York, and it has been followed by other States until now it is the law in thirty-five jurisdictions, in which it has superseded all previous legislation on this subject.*

Two years ago this body recommended a Uniform Law on Warehouse Receipts, which has already been adopted by ten States.

Last year a Uniform Sales Act, which has been adopted in six States and Territories.** Also a Uniform Law on Divorce, which has been adopted by two States, and has in preparation a uniform law on "Bills of Lading," "Certificates of Stock" and "Partnership." The Conference has, among other committees, a committee on "Vital and Penal Statistics," and this committee is engaged in considering a uniform law upon this subject.

President Roosevelt has, during his administration, devoted much of his time and energy in the interests of uniform laws and has urged upon Congress, particularly under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the enactment of laws upon subjects over which the national government can properely take jurisdiction. The demand for national legislation will increase in the future unless the degree of uniformity which is indispensable to our national life and commerce be secured by concurrent legislation of the several States.

When Lincoln, in 1863, said this is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," he included by necessary implication the idea of uniform and consistent laws as expressed by a son of Virginia, a great man, long before that time, namely:

"The government of the Union, then, is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit. It is a government of all. Its powers are delegated by all. It represents all and acts for all."

* * *

The importance with which the Congress of the United States regards uniformity of legislation, representing, as it does, all the people of the United States and the States, may be seen from the fact that in 1899, when fifteen States of the Union had adopted the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law, Congress adopted it for the District of Columbia. The report upon this measure by the Judiciary Committee of the House was adopted by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and, in its report, among other things, reference was made to the meeting of the commissioners of the different States of the Union on Uniform State Laws, annually, to consider proposed measures of uniformity on commercial law and other steps on which uniformity has been considered desirable. The action taken by the commissioners at the annual conference was commended, the report stating that up to that time the most important bill proposed was the one under consideration.

The late Judge Brewster said:

"The common law itself is of constant and beneficent influence towards unity, and would be far more so than it is if we had one instead of nearly fifty courts of final resort. But when, by conflicting decisions and variant statutes, that unity is weakened and impaired, then may we not believe that the voluntary attempts of the commonwealths to restore and preserve that unity may have a higher significance than mere utility? That it may well be interpreted to denote the attachment of states and people to that union they have created whose first object, as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, is to establish justice.

"On the other hand, is it not certain that the realization of a common freedom, the organization of common rights, the development of a common civilization and their expression in common laws make a bond of unity stronger even than the mighty bonds of territory, race or commerce?

"Surely in these days, when so many centrifugal and disrupting forces in society are at work, the importance of a healthy public sentiment that shall desire, and seek to obtain, statutory unity rather than diversity in matters of common interest to all, and to that end frames the general rules of equity and law, if not in one mould at least on the same essential principles and rules of action, can hardly be overestimated."

In conclusion, the hope may be expressed that this brief consideration of the necessity and value of uniform laws may sufficiently accomplish its purpose so that members of this association may feel that while, even as a great judge once pointed out, the first consideration for the courts should be the settlement of controversies and the second consideration just settlement, so it is necessary, in order that the voice of law may produce harmony in the world, that that voice should sound one mandate, alike applicable to all the peoples of all the States, who think, vote and labor under one flag for a single destiny. To the attainment of this end it may be necessary that, from the impossiblity of perfect adaptation of one great law to a thousand local conditions, certain communities, and even sections, may be required to sacrifice personal desires, individual methods of business and even, perhaps, climatic habits of thought for the furtherance of the general welfare. Yet it may be confidently expected that members of such associations as this, striving for high ideals, will individually wield influence to prevent sectional and State jealousies, local pride and prejudices from nullifying the conscientious efforts made by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and similar organizations to unify the interests and social standards of a far-spread people and hasten the realization of a truly united nation.

Mr. R. H. Underwood, assistant superintendent of the penitentiary at Huntsville, Texas, read the following paper:

THE PENAL SYSTEM OF TEXAS.

R. H. UNDERWOOD, HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS.

I am here as a substitute for Colonel J. A. Herring, superintendent of the Texas State Penitentiaries, whose intention it was to be with you on this occasion. At the last moment he was prevented by other important business.

It is my purpose to place before you a synopsis of the penal system of Texas, commencing with its organization in March, 1848, when an act of the Legislature created the penitentiary of the State, and Governor Bell appointed Captain James Gillespie as the first superintendent.

Texas, like other young States of our Union, has not yet reached that point in her career at which she may invite the criticism of the mother states; however, her progress the past few years has been so marked as to bid fair to be capable of unfolding to the world a system of penal government that recognizes the laws of humanity, the progress of moral nd mental suasion, the benefits derived from proper industrial pursuits, and the absolute harmonizing of physical and moral teachings. Our people are, as a whole, not yet prepared to accept the immediate disposition of these questions of penal government; however, during the past few years a broader view of the convict question has been manifested by the Texas public, and the administration of Governor Campbell has more than proven the efficacy of a policy that will practically dispel the forebodings of the everpresent pessimist. There is always an element in every community that declines to take kindly to any movement that savors of a reform in the old accepted way of doing things; we have this to contend with in Texas just the same as you have probably met with in your respective states, and it is to overcome this feeling of doubt, or what might be termed prejudice against penal reform, that the present administration is striving. We hope to succeed, but it requires time and patience to supplant an old and accepted ruling.

The administration of Governor Ireland commenced in January, 1883. He appointed Thomas J. Goree superintendent of the penitentiaries. The Legislature disapproved the leases made, and the State resumed control of the penitentiaries May 5, 1883. Prior to this period the penitentiaries had been alternately under its control and leased out. A Board of Commissioners (three in number), a general superintendent and an assistant superintendent each for the Huntsville and Rusk Prisons were appointed. The officers were all made appointive by the GovThe superintendent of the penitentiaries has general supervision and control over all convicts that may be imprisoned in the penitentiaries, or operated outside the walls thereof, and over all under-officers and guards connected therewith. He is the chief executive officer of the penitentiaries, and as such has all powers necessary to the discharge of his duties, and is subject only to the Penitentiary Board and the Governor.

The assistant superintendents have a general oversight of all work, manufactures or repairs done on State account, in or about the penitentiary of which they have control. The labor of all convicts placed under the management or employ of any foreman or manager in the performance of any work in or about the penitentiary must be directed by the assistant superintendent in charge.

The inspectors have the immediate supervision of the convicts and officers in charge of them at camps and other places outside the walls of the penitentiary, and have the right to remove any under officer in charge of convicts for incompetency, or for violation of the rules and regulations governing the camps. At least once a month, and oftener if required by the superintendent, they visit each convict camp. Each outside camp is in charge of a sergeant, who is appointed by the superintendent, and these sergeants employ the guards who look after the squads of men who are at work on the several camps. However, should a sergeant discharge a guard for any violation of a rule or negligence of his duties, said guard may be reinstated by the superintendent or one of the inspectors. A guard's salary in the Texas Penitentiaries is placed at $30 per month. A sergeant's salary is based on the number of convicts in the camp he has in charge. A fifty-man camp gives the sergeant $50 per month; a seventy-five man camp employs the sergeant at $75 per month, and a camp having one hundred convicts working it places the sergeant's salary at $100 per month. The State boards and houses the sergeants and guards.

The early organization of the penal system of Texas experienced the results that follow when the taxpayers endeavor to handle the convict question on the strictly business theory of