valid. So also a foreign will of real estate situated in Pennsylvania to which the testator has affixed his mark, will be valid in this state "if the other requisites under existing laws have been complied with," i. e., if it be in writing and proved by two competent witnesses as required by section six of the act of 1833. This would be so even though a mark be not recognized by the law of the place of execution as the equivalent of the testator's signature. It remains to consider what effect the act will have upon the provisions of section II of the act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 328. That section reads as follows: "That no estate, real or personal, shall hereafter be bequeathed, devised or conveyed to any body politic, or to any person in trust for religious or charitable uses, except the same be done by deed or will, attested by two credible, and at the time, disinterested witnesses, at least one calendar month before the decease of the testator or alienor; and all dispositions of property contrary hereto shall be void and go to the residuary legatee or devisee, next of kin, or heirs, according to law: Provided, That any disposition of property within said period, bona fide made for a fair valuable consideration, shall not be hereby avoided." It is to be noted that this section contains two independent conditions; First, that a bequest or devise for religious or charitable uses, shall be "attested by two credible witnesses"; second that it shall be executed "at least one calendar month before the decease of the testator." The first condition relates solely to the mode or form of execution; the second condition makes void such bequests if executed within a certain "time limit." The proposed act clearly relates solely to the form or mode of execution, and it would therefore repeal the requirement of two credible "attesting witnesses." The "time limit" prescribed by the act of 1855 has nothing to do with the mode of execution. Therefore, by a most strained construction only could the proposed act be held to repeal the "time limit" clause in the act of 1855. But in order that there may be no doubt in this regard your Committee recommend that the second proviso, as given below in the appendix, be added to the act as adopted by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws. This will leave the law as it now stands with regard to bequests or devises for religious or charitable uses, executed within one month before the decease of the testator. In this connection see Hildeburn's estate 4 D. R., p. 40. OTHER ACTS The Conference has now before it tentative drafts of Acts relating to Partnership, to Marriage and Licenses to Marry, and the Formation and Regulation of Corporations, which will be considered in due time. STATISTICS It may be well to state that thirty-eight states, three territories and the District of Columbia have adopted the Negotiable Instruments Act; twenty-one states and the District of Columbia the Warehouse Receipts Act; six states and one territory the Sales Act; four states the Stock Transfer Act; three states the Bill of Lading Act; two states the Foreign Wills Act; three states the Uniform Divorce Act, and one state the Family Desertion Act. The next meeting of the Conference of Commissioners will be held at Boston, Mass., August 23rd, 1911. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with custom, the Committee submits the two Acts approved by the Conference of Commissioners and recommends their approval by this Association in the following resolutions : 1. Resolved, That this Association approves the draft of an Act prepared under the direction and recommended by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in National conference, entitled "An Act to make Uniform the Law Relating to Desertion and Non-support of Wife by Husband, or of Children by either Father or Mother, and Providing punishment therefor, and to Promote Uniformity among the States in reference thereto,” with such amendments of the penal laws of this State as are necessary to make its provisions effective. 2. Resolved, That this Association approves the draft of an Act prepared under the direction and recommended by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in National Conference, entitled "An Act Relative to Wills executed without this State, and to Promote Uniformity among the States in that respect;" as amended for Pennsylvania. 3. Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor of Pennsylvania be respectfully urged to adopt and approve the foregoing Acts. Respectfully submitted, WALTER GEORGE SMITH, ISAAC HIESTER, Committee APPENDIX AN ACT RELATING TO DESERTION AND NON-SUPPORT OF WIFE BY HUSBAND, OR OF CHILDREN BY EITHER FATHER OR MOTHER, AND PROVIDING PUNISHMENT THEREFOR; AND TO PROMOTE UNIFORMITY BETWEEN THE STATES IN REFERENCE THERETO. SECTION 1.-Be it enacted, etc., (1) That any husband who shall, without just cause, desert or wilfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous circumstances; or any parent who shall, without lawful excuse, (2) desert or wilfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her (3) child or children under the age of sixteen years in destitute or necessitous circumstances, shall be guilty of a crime (4) and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the (5), not exceeding two years, (6) or both, with or without hard labor, in the discretion of the Court. (7) NOTE-The annotations were prepared for the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. I. This Act, throughout, follows very closely the Act of Congress of March 23rd, 1906, for the District of Columbia, the principles of which are very fully discussed in the monograph of William H. Baldwin, Esq., of the Board of Managers of the Associated Charities of Washington, D. C., entitled "Family Desertion and Non-Support Laws." Nearly every State has some provision relating to this subject. The Acts of Assembly in many States are quite full and comprehensive. The Act adopted by Congress for the District of Columbia was the result of correspondence by the Board of Associated Charities of Washington, with Governors, Attorneys-General, District Attorneys, and prominent lawyers of many States. This Act of Congress works very satisfactorily in the District of Columbia. At the meeting of the Committee in Washington in January, 1910, Mr. Baldwin was present, and greatly assisted the Committee with advice and suggestions and information as to the practical workings of the Act in the District of Columbia. Acts of Congress differ very much from Acts of Assembly of the various States, in that they are much more concise, and generally embrace, by way of proviso, matters that the legislatures of the various States are inclined to express in separate sections. Each mode of expression has its advantages. But, in view of the fact that the courts of each separate State are so often called upon to determine the constitutionality of various parts of Acts of Assembly, and since one part of an Act may be sustained as constitutional, and another part rejected as unconstitutional, it seems preferable for State legislatures to divide every Act into separate and distinct sections. Therefore, the provisions of Section of the District of Columbia Act have been divided into several sections. 2. It will be observed that in line 1, "wife desertion" must be "without just cause," whereas in line 5 "child desertion" must be "without lawful excuse." The reason for the distinction is this: Wife desertion is a cause of divorce as well, and in divorce proceedings such desertion must have been "without just cause" on the part of the deserted wife. But in the case of child desertion there must be a "lawful excuse" on the part of the deserting parent. In other words, in the first instance the ground justifying the desertion must be furnished or occasioned by the deserted party. In the second instance the excuse or ground for desertion must be furnished by the deserting party. 3. The draft of this Bill as reported to the Conference at Chattanooga included illegitimate as well as legitimate children, largely upon the strong recommendation of Mr. W. H. Baldwin, of Washington, D. C. The District of Columbia Act does not include illegitimate children, but a bill was introduced at the last session of Congress to bring them within its provisions, and received the approval of the Judiciary Committee of both Houses. Nebraska and Ohio, however, seem to be the only States whose Desertion Laws apply to illegitimate as well as legitimate children. While there are strong moral and legal grounds for so doing, yet inasmuch as the Bastardy Laws of every State make some provision for the support of illegitimate children, it was deemed advisable by the Conference not to combine Family Desertion with the desertion of a "nullius filius," since the proper remedy would be by amendment of the Bastardy Laws. 4. "Family Desertion," according to the tables prepared by Mr. Baldwin, is made a felony in six States, viz., Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin; a misdemeanor in thirty-eight States, including the District of Columbia; while in five States there is no law on the subject to wit, in Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas. Some States, like Pennsylvania, treat Family Desertion in two ways, either as a quasi-criminal offense as under the Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78, where the offender is haled before the court of Quarter Sessions on information made before a Justice of the Peace or other Magistrate; and after hearing, without a jury, the Court may order him to pay a certain sum for the support and maintenance of his wife or children; or as a misdemeanor, as under the Act of March 13, 1903, P. L. Under this latter Act, which is cumulative, the offender is entitled to trial by jury. The penalty is imprisonment or fine, or both; the fine if any, to be paid or applied in whole or in part to the wife or children, as the court may direct. In Pennsylvania a civil remedy is also granted to the wife against the husband by the Act of April 27, 1909, P. L. 182. Such civil remedy obtains in many other States. 26. As pointed out by Mr. Baldwin in his study on "Family Desertion and NonSupport," it is very essential that the offense of desertion and non-support be raised to the grade of a crime, in order that it may become an extraditable offense, as many instances occur where the husband removes to another State, leaving his family helpless and destitute. But as thirty-eight States and Territories have made it a misdemeanor, and since under the Act of Congress of February 12, 1793, any person charged with the commission of a felony or other crime, is subject to extradition, the Conference substituted the word "crime" for "misdemeanor." In one State at least, South Carolina, and probably others, a misdemeanor is not punishable by confinement at hard labor. 5. Here will be inserted the place of imprisonment. 6. Unless there is a constitutional provision in any State limiting the term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor to one year or less, this clause "not exceeding two years" is clearly within the power of the Legislature. The Committee, when at Washington, adopted by way of amendment to Section IV of the printed report, now Section IV, the words "for a period not exceeding two years, ," but omitted to make a similar amendment to Section I. This clause is therefore added that Sections I and IV may correspond. While "twelve months" is the maximum term of imprisonment fixed by the District of Columbia Act, it has been found in practice that it often becomes necessary to begin proceedings de novo at the end of the first year. It was therefore thought best to increase the time to two years. some 7. As stated above in Note 4, confinement at hard labor is never imposed in States where the offense is only a misdemeanor. In other States the penalty "at hard labor" is not imposed except where the imprisonment is in the Penitentiary, or a Reformatory, or House of Correction. It rarely obtains where the imprisonment is in the County Jail; partly for the practical reason that in them there are neither appliances, nor space nor opportunities for what is known as "convict labor." But as the penalty provided in this Section reads, "with or without hard labor," the question will rest in the discretion of the court according to the penal provisions of the laws of each State. In some States"convict labor" has been either abolished or limited as the result of the influence of the Labor Unions. In Maryland, at the Baltimore Penitentiary, "Contract Labor" is permitted by law. Recent investigations show that the labor of the prisoners enures not only to the benefit of the State, but of the prisoners themselves, who by working overtime earn for themselves or for the support of their families, fully as much as goes to the State. In the District of Columbia, which is under control of Congress, and therefore in a sense, sui generis, prisoners at hard labor may be compelled to work upon the streets of the City of Washington at a fixed wage per diem, and of their wages, under the Act of Congress of 1906, an amount equal to fifty cents a day is paid over to, or for the benefit of, the prisoner's family. It would be impracticable, perhaps, to insert a clause in this Bill providing for the employment of offenders under this Act upon the streets or |