F-——a_.s _-__ _. . .;m---qiifit~— ._-—_h_—_ '—
The Editor's Bag reports of the Committee, however, does not lay emphasis on the restrictive aspect of the measure, and if the Act
had to rely on this alone for support, the movement for uniformity in divorce legislation might well be in danger of receiving a serious setback. The more enlightened thought of the day regarding the function of law dis
countenances the theory that it is possible to alter fundamental habits of human society by means of legislation. Law cannot supplant or overrule morality. It can at best only reflect morality and make its mandates effective. The problem of the jurist in drafting a uni
form divorce act is solely that of formu lating a law which fully meets with the requirements of social justice. The repression of the divorce evil may safely
"
311
The age has reached the point where it is futile to expect that any theological or institutional statement of morality
can prevail, except so far as it commands the; approval of the community in general. All really have the same fundamental interest of social welfare at heart, and the churchman, the jurist, and the man of science can and should co-operate in the effort to make legis lation conform to the highest ethical demands of the age. For these reasons we do not think that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws made any mistake in approv ing this Act, which was the outcome of
the deliberations of a. congress in the deliberations of which church dignitaries
were allowed to participate. For these same reasons we think it would be
be left to morality, so long as the law
a. great mistake to ignore the manifest
rises fully to the responsibility of pro viding the means for executing the moral judgment of society. A dog
advantages of enlisting scientific co
matic attitude on the part of the drafts
man is thus ill suited to his task. He cannot afiord to take the position that any special conception of morality is paramount to the general one per meating the whole social fabric, nor
operation for the purpose of promoting any phase of the movement for uniform state laws. The Uniform Divorce Act
is a meritorious piece of legislation, and in our judgment reflects the views not of any special interest but of the pro gressive elements of the legal profession in the United States. If, however,
can he ignore the results of sociological
it has any minor defects to which
investigation conducted in accordance
sufiicient attention has not yet been directed, the liberal-minded, rational
with a sound scientific method. sociologist,
to
be
sure,
may
The
uncon
methods to be employed in remedying
sciously underrate the responsibility of the state, but he nevertheless recog
them are obvious.
nizes the fact that society is able to remedy its own evils, and will inevitably
DIFFICULTIES OF A CODIFICA TION OF AMERICAN LAW
attempt that task without becoming
wholly dependent upon external aid from legislation. The sociologist is by virtue of his calling a profound believer
E print elsewhere in this issue a
powerful plea for a uniform
in the wholesomeness of popular con
legislative codification of American law. The article was inspired by the project
ceptions of morality, and the public
of Messrs.
spirited jurist and the conscientious
Andrews
churchman are not less devoted to the same ideal, if they do but know it.
pages, contemplating a “tacit" or purely
Alexander, Kirchwey and recently
outlined
expository codification.
in
these
