Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 10.djvu/406

380 38o HARVARD LAW REVIEW. personal effects of their guests should be applied. It is submitted, however, that the case cannot be supported on principle or authority. Innkeepers were originally held to a strict liability, because, among other reasons, the inn was sought chiefly for pro- tection. This argument in favor of an extensive responsibility does not exist in the case of steamboats and sleeping cars, their chief service being, not protection, but transportation; and it is quite possible that, were the question raised for the first time at the present day, the rigor of the rule with regard to innkeepers would be somewhat relaxed. In Clark v. Burns, Ii8 Mass, 279, where the plaintiff was a passenger on the defendants' steamer, and where his watch, placed in his clothing, was stolen from the stateroom at night, without negligence on the part of the defendants, it was held that the defendants were not liable as innkeepers ; nor as carriers, inasmuch as the watch was not intrusted to their custody and control. See Am. Steamship Co. v. Bryan., 83 Pa, St. 446. But see also Pullman Co. v. Lowe, 28 Neb, 239, where a sleeping car company was held liable as an innkeeper. On the question as to whether the defendant, in the principal case, should have been held liable as a carrier, see Angell on Carriers, §§103, 115; Redfield on Carriers, §§77-87; Kent's Com., *6oi, n.(<:) ; Story on Bailments, § 595; Browne on Carriers, pp. 62-74. Constitutional Law — Enactment of Statutes — Impeachment by Journal. — A State Constitution provided that no law to impose a tax should be passed, unless the yeas and nays were entered on the journals. The act in question was voted on by both branches of the legislature, attested by the presiding officers, duly enrolled, and printed among the State statutes. Held, that the omission from the journals of the yeas and nays invalidated the law. Union Bank of Richmond v. Commissioners of Toion of Oxford, 25 S, E. Rep. 966 (N. C), How far, in general, courts will go into outside evidence, to prove invalid a statute which is properly enrolled and published, is not wholly settled. But they will clearly not look behind the journals of the two houses. So facts tending to show corrupt motives on the part of the legislature in passing a law will not be considered. A point of much difficulty is where the enrolled act and the journals do not agree as to the contents of a given bill. On the question which of the two records shall then control, the cases are conflicting. The English rule is to disregard the journals. And perhaps this can be said to be the tendency of recent decisions in America, This view has the argument of convenience in its favor. A full collection of authorities by States in Field. Clark, 143 U. S,649, 661, shows that upon this point the jurisdictions in this country are about evenly divided, A somewhat different problem is presented when the Constitution expressly provides that certain formalities be observed, as, for example, that the yeas and nays appear on the journals. Under such a constitutional requirement the journals are usually examined, and if there is an absence of the yeas and nays from the record it defeats the statute. Cooley, Const, Lim., 6th ed,, 168. There are, however, some cases which hold that even then the enrolled act cannot be impeached by the journals. Lafferty. Huffman, 35 S, W, Rep. 123 (Ky,), The court's assumption that the author- ities are all on its side is hardly warranted. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce. — Held., that a State statute requiring all passenger trains passing through a country to stop at the county seat is un- constitutional as a regulation of interstate commerce. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. State of Illiiiois, 16 Sup. Ct, Rep. 1096, Held, that a State law prohibiting the running of freight trains on Sunday is not in- valid, as interfering with interstate commerce, though it prevents trains from passing through the State on that day from and to adjacent States, Fuller, C, J,, and White, J,, dissenting, Hennington v State of Georgia, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1086. See Notes, Constitutional Law — Subcontractor's Lien Act, — Held, a statute giving to subcontractors and to those furnishing materials to the principal contractor a Hen on the building contracted to be built, is unconstitutional, such statute being in conflict with Section i of the Bill of Rights, which declares that all men have certain inalien- able rights, among which are those of enjoying liberty. Palmer v. Tingle, 45 N. E. Rep, 313 (Ohio), The opinion in the principal ca.se cannot be deemed conclusive. The court, on no very satisfactory authority, assumes the phrase *' enjoying liberty" in the Bill of Rights to guarantee the freedom of contract subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. The decision rests on this assumption, — an assumption which is soundly combated in an article by C, E. Shattuck, 4 Harvard Law Review, 365. The decisions in different jurisdictions as to the constitutionality of statutes substantially similar to that involved in the principal case are in conflict.