_States and Territories in which there are No Restrictive Statutes._—The following States and Territories have no statute restricting the nature of the disclosures which a physician may be compelled to make in a court of justice: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.[217] _States and Territories in which there are Restrictive Statutes._—The following States and Territories have statutes restricting disclosures by physicians: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Indian Territory, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[218] _The Rule in United States Courts._—In trials at common law in the courts of the United States, the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, are regarded as rules of decision.[219] Section 858 of the Revised Statutes of the United States prescribes rules with reference to competency notwithstanding color and interest of witnesses, and in actions by or against executors, administrators, or guardians, and then provides that “in all other respects the laws of the State in which the court is held shall be the rules of decision as to the competency of witnesses in the courts of the United States in trials at _common law_, and in _equity_ and _admiralty_.” Accordingly it has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, on a policy of life insurance, the evidence of a physician, inadmissible under Section 834 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure, was properly excluded.[220] But in criminal prosecutions in United States Courts, the privilege secured by State statutes does not avail.[221] THE STATUTES. As the effect of these statutes depends largely upon their language, the construction put upon the law in one State is chiefly serviceable in interpreting that of another State in those particulars where the two are similar. _Statutory Declarations of Policy._—A comparative view of the several laws shows that in the following States and Territory there are declarations of policy prefixed to the prohibition of disclosures, that show the reason of the enactment, namely: California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Utah.[222] The declaration is to the effect that there are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate, and that therefore the prohibition of the statute is laid. ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES.