The legislation of the United States and its constituent States is generally conceded to be in an unhappy state. Several signifi cant reform movements are (1929) in progress. A movement for the creation of legislative reference bureaux, organizations with the double purpose of offering expert help in the draughting of statutes and of affording to legislators information upon the subject matter of specific statutory proposals, was begun in Wis consin and has gained wide acceptance during the last 15 years. Expert legislative draughtsmen are now attached to the Senate and House of the U.S. Congress and to a number of State legis latures. A movement for introducing uniformity in the statutory laws of the several States was initiated by the organization of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1892. They consist of commissioners appointed by each State who meet annually to frame legislation on subjects upon which uniformity is believed essential and recommend its enactment by the various State legis latures. Their most successful achievements have been in the field of commercial law, though their endeavours have embraced subjects of wide variety. Similar efforts to promote uniformity have been made by groups representing private interests and public welfare organizations. Interpretation statutes upon the British model have also been enacted in some States and the work of expert draughtsmen has brought some order and method in the process of statute-making.
Another peculiar American problem relates to the extent to which courts take cognizance of statute law. All courts are bound to take judicial notice of the Federal laws and the statutes of the State in which suit is brought. But different doctrines are in force as to the extent to which they will take notice of the statute law of other States. Some State courts have boldly asserted their willingness to take notice of such laws; others refuse to recognize them unless they are specially pleaded or proved, in de fault thereof assuming that the law of the other State is identical either with their decisional or statutory law.
Statutes have different forms, being either acts of the legislature or joint or concurrent resolutions of both houses of the legislature. In each instance they must secure the approval of the executive.
In many cases the same subject-matter is alternately dealt with by both forms of statutes. Treaties of the national Government have the force of statutes and stand on a parity with them. Like statutes they are the "supreme law of the land" and supersede conflicting State legislation. Just as a subsequent statute may re peal an earlier one, a later statute repeals an earlier treaty. States are forbidden to conclude treaties but may make compacts with one another with the assent of Congress. Such compacts also have the effect of statutes. They have been used as an instrument of statecraft to deal effectively with problems that demand a regional treatment greater than a single State can give and yet less than is desirable for nation-wide control.
Codification on an analogy to the European systems began as a movement in 1848, the date of the adoption of the Field Code in New York. That code was limited to an attempt to recognize and simplify procedural law. A similar programme for the codi fication of the substantive law was initiated by the same sponsor, David Dudley Field, but failed of adoption. Procedural and sub stantive codes on the model of the Field Code were, however, adopted in numerous States. The merits and demerits of a codi fication in statutory form of the procedural and substantive law became a heated matter of professional controversy during the latter part of the i9th century. The controversy has not yet abated. The hopes of the codifiers of remodelling the common law on lines akin to the civil law systems have not been realized. Judges imbued with the common law training and technique have continued to handle codifications as mere statutes and not as ultimate sources of the law in the manner of the civilians. The "code States" are thus common law jurisdictions to the same extent as the other States.
See Freund, Standards of American Legislation (1917) ; Reinsch, American Legislatures and Legislative Methods (1913) ; Willard, Legis lative Handbook (189o) ; Jones, Statute Law Making in the United States (1912) ; Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (1904) ; Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws (1911) ; Clarke, Science of Law and Lawmaking (1898) ; Brown, Underlying Principles of Modern Legislation (6th ed. 192o).