We are very glad to be able to publish in this issue a paper by Mr. Z. A. Lash, K.C. The position of Mr. Lash as an authority in that region where finance and law meet is so unique, that we are sure the readers of the CANADIAN LAW TIMES will welcome the contribution he has been kind enough to send to us, although its subject is a purely financial and economic one, namely, the Effect of the War upon the rates of sterling and New York exchange.' After some preliminary observations as to what is meant by "exchange," and what "money" is, Mr. Lash explains in a delightfully lucid way, why the war is the chief cause of the great differences between the previous and the present rates of exchange between Canada and London, and how it operates to bring about and maintain so serious a change in these rates.

We call special attention to what we think we are justified in calling a clever and striking Article on the all-important subject of Costs,' which we publish in the present number. We are not at liberty to mention the name of the writer. We should think, however, that the Article would cause some searchings of heart among members of the Judiciary, as to what is meant by the words' discretion of the Court or judge, in what used to be Consolidated rule 1130, but has now received its apotheosis by being turned into sec. 74 of our Judicature Act. Everybody knows the provision referred to. 'Subject to the express provisions of any statute, the costs of, and incidental to, all proceedings shall be in the discretion of the Court or judge, and the Court or judge shall have full powers to determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid.' Surely we may say with confidence that

VOL. XXXV. C.L.T.-37

it never was the intention that successful parties to legal proceedings should be deprived of their costs as an expression of what our contributor calls an ill-defined censura morum,' much less of vague sentimentalism and vicarious generosity; but that the discretion to be exercised should be founded upon demonstrated facts directly relevant to the issue between the parties: yet some of the very recent cases cited by our contributor, would almost lead us to suppose that more than one member of the Bench interprets the provision differently.

There is nothing which the administration of justice in Ontario requires more than the formation and expression, as occasion calls for it, of a real professional opinion. The Canadian and provincial Bar Associations no doubt, to some extent, afford an opportunity for the expression of such an opinion, but annual meetings are like angels' visits, few and far between. They may resolute till the cows come home,' but practical results are slow to follow. Such a subject as that dealt with in our Article in this number on 'Costs,' is, we think, preeminently the kind of subject upon which such a professional opinion should express itself. We shall be very glad to make the CANADIAN LAW TIMES a medium for the expression of professional opinion upon this or any other proper subject.

There is one thing which a systematic perusal of the legal Reviews and periodicals produced by our cousins across the line soon suggests, and that is how many valuable hints we might derive from their methods. They go about things in a very systematic and business-like way. Take, for example, the matter of substituting uniformity for diversity in the laws of the different provinces in respect to property and civil rights. As everyone knows the British North America Act contains a special provision intended to promote that object; and at the time of Confederation, it was thought that this unification would soon follow. Yet from that day to this nothing has been effected in that direction, excepting that a few statutes, such as that respecting Assignments for the benefit of creditors, have been re-duplicated in several provinces. In 1902 it is true Dr. Benjamin Russell brought the subject up in the Dominion parliament, but his motion came to nothing; and Mr. Robert Borden, as he then was, said that it was idle for Parliament to attempt anything of the kind until the provinces got together, and ascertained

whether there was any basis upon which they could agree as to what comes within property and civil rights. Now as the Yale Law Review for June shews, there has been in existence for the last twenty-five years in the United States a body known as the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

The main work and object of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has been, and is now, to express in legislative form, clarify, simplify, and make uniform, the commercial law of the various States of the Union. They have, during this period, drafted and recommended to the legislatures of the States a Warehouse Receipts Act, a Bills of Lading Act, a transfer of Stock Act, a Sales Act, and latest, but not least, a Partnership Act. These commercial Acts have already been adopted by several of the States; and we are told that with intelligent cooperation from members of the Bar and commercial bodies interested, it would seem to be merely a question of time when all the States will have adopted this legislation. Nor has the Conference confined itself to commercial law. They have also drafted and recommended an Act relating to Wills executed without the State, a Family Desertion Act, a Cold Storage of Food Act, a Workmen's Compensation Act, besides considering and recommending a Child Labour Act prepared by the National Child Labour Association, and the Pure Food Act modelled after the United States Pure Food and Drugs Act. But various local and economic conditions, and the conflict of opposing social forces have so far made it impossible to secure the general adoption of these non-commercial Acts.

The methods adopted by the Conference of Commissioners. on Uniform State Laws are as follows. When they decide to draft a law on a commercial subject they authorise their standing Committee on Commercial law to submit a draft; they also now invariably authorise their Committee to employ a draftsman by whom the initial work is done. His responsibility is to the Committee on Commercial law. The Committee, not the draftsman, is responsible to the Conference. The members of the Committee spend much time over a draft before submitting it to the Conference. They also send copies of the proposed draft for criticism to selected lists of persons who are believed to have some special knowledge of the subject of the proposed Act inviting suggestion

and criticism, besides frequently calling into conference with them those who from their peculiar opportunities may be supposed to have an expert knowledge of the subject. But no matter how carefully the first draft may be prepared, experience has shewn both the Conference and its Committee that the first draft should not be submitted to the Conference for adoption, but merely for criticism and instruction as to the nature of the changes which it is de abie to insert in the second draft. Time also must be given for the wide distribution of the draft and a consideration of the suggestions and criticisms received. As a matter of fact few, if any, of the commercial Acts have been adopted by the Conference in less than three years from the time the first draft has been submitted, while on many of the Acts the Conference has spent considerably longer time.

Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C., has effectively revived interest in this subject of bringing the private laws of the different provinces so far as possible into uniformity, by his Address to the Canadian Club at Ottawa on December 7th, 1912, and by the paper he read before the Canadian Bar Association at its recent meeting in Montreal. He is supported by Sir James Aikins in an Address delivered on December 21st, 1914, before the members of the Canadian Credit Men's Trust Association at Winnipeg, in which we are glad to see Sir James calls very special attention to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and commends the work already accomplished by it, saying that what the United States has done Canada can do. As Sir James points out the unification, or "standardization" of the laws of the provinces. affecting financial and commercial transactions is of great importance to Canadian financial institutions, manufacturers, and wholesale merchants, or jobbers, whose businesses are necessarily carried on throughout the Dominion irrespective of provincial limits; and as trade methods and principles are the same everywhere throughout Canada, there seems to be no reason why those conflicting laws which affect not only provincial but interprovincial business should not be brought into harmony and working simplicity. We are glad to see that a resolution was passed unanimously, as a result of his Address, calling on the respective provincial Governments to appoint a commission or commissioners for the purpose of conferring with such representatives from the other provinces in order to obtain the desired result.

THE EFFECT OF THE WAR UPON THE RATES OF STERLING AND NEW YORK EXCHANGE.

By the law of Canada, the British sovereign or pound is declared to be of the value of $4.86 2-3 in the currency of Canada. If a demand bill of exchange drawn in Canada on London for £100 costs exactly $486.66, or if a demand bill of exchange drawn in London on Canada for $486.66 costs exactly £100, then the rate of exchange between the two places is said to be at par.

The market price for exchange between London and Canada or London and the U.S.A., and vice versa, is governed by the rate for demand sterling exchange obtainable in New York. The rates in London are based upon the quotations for sterling exchange received there from the New York market. In the case of Canada, the New York rate is taken, and the premium or discount ruling on New York funds in Canada is added or deducted, as the case may be. This is because the volume of business in exchange between New York and London is so much greater than the volume in Canada. or other places on this continent. The smaller volume is powerless to control the price of the larger, but the larger forms the basis for the price of the smaller. Ex. gr.-If a merchant in Toronto wanted to send £100 to London he could purchase the draft in New York, and the price there, plus the cost to him of sending the funds to New York for the purchase, would be the cost of the draft. If a bank or financial house in Toronto should ask much more than this, the merchant would buy the draft in New York; therefore the price in Canada is in this way controlled by the price in New York.

In tracing out the effect of the war upon rates of sterling exchange, the U.S.A. and Canada will for the above reason be dealt with together. There are various causes which affect these rates. The subject is a very difficult and complicated one, but the war is a cause so outstanding that it is worth while to deal with it specially. The explanation will be found simple and readily understood.

A bill of exchange is the common means of transmitting money from one place or person to another place or person, and, as the question centres around money, let us before