Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/701

 670

THE GREEN BAG

service actually rendered is all that a common •carrier is permitted to exact. The principle upon which the railroad seemed to have acted is discountenanced in the conclud ing statement that railroads have no legal right to graduate their charges in proportion to the prosperity which attends industries whose pro ducts they transport.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Chinese Exclusion — Deportation of Slave Girl.) U. S. C. C. A. cth Circuit. — The Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has recently handed down an opinion in the case of United States v. Ah Sou in which the decision of the District Court for the Northern Division of the District of Washington is overthrown. The District Court in effect held that where the depor tation of a Chinese slave girl, illegally brought into this country for immoral purposes would re sult in remanding her to slavery and degradation, her deportation would not be ordered. The Cir cuit Court of Appeals agrees with the District Court in its holding that the girl's marriage to a registered Chinese laborer who, however, was not entitled to have a wife in this country, was not a defense to proceedings for her deportation, and especially so in view of the fact that the marriage was at her solicitation for her protection, and was not followed by cohabitation, nor apparently re garded by the parties as more than a formality. The view of the district judge is very briefly ex pressed where he says: "If sent back to her own country where she was by her kindred sold to a cruel master she must abandon hope, and it is shocking to reflect that the laws of our country require the court to use its process to accomplish such an unholy purpose." Basing its conclusion apparently on the i3th Amendment to the Fed eral Constitution prohibiting slavery, the lower court directed that the order for deportation be vacated. The Circuit Court of Appeals treats this phase of the subject very briefly, merely observing that -they do not understand the ruling of the court to Ъе a holding that the i3th Amendment by its terms prohibited the deportation of the girl, that it was not contended on the appeal that by virtue of an order of deportation her condition as a slave -would be recognized, or that she would be sent into slavery, at any place within the United States, or within its jurisdiction. In conclusion, it is said that while the case is one which from its nature enlists the sympathy of the court, nevertheless, the law is so written that the court cannot yield to the humane considerations which actuated the court below.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Compulsory Vac cination.) U. S. S. C. — In Jacobson v. Massa chusetts, 25 Supreme Court Reporter, 358, in which the constitutionality of the Massachusetts compulsory vaccination law is attacked on the ground that it is in derogation of the rights se cured by the preamble of the Federal Constitution and opposed to the spirit of the constitution itself, it is held that the spirit of the constitution or its preamble cannot be invoked apart from the words of that instrument to invalidate the statute. Aside from this general contention the statute is attacked specifically as being in contravention of certain constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges. In response to these various conten tions it is maintained that the personal liberty secured by the I4th Amendment against state deprivation is not infringed by the statute; that the lack of any exception in favor of adults who are certified by a registered physician to be unfit subjects for vaccination does not render the statute objectionable as denying the equal pro tection of the laws, although an exception in favor of children in like condition is made. Aside from. overruling these direct attacks upon the consti tutionality of the statute, its validity is main tained on the ground that the state legislature in enacting it was entitled to choose between the theory of those of the medical profession who think vaccination worthless and believe its effect to be injurious and' dangerous, and the opposite» theory, which is in accord with the common belief and is maintained by high medical author ity; and was not compelled to commit the matter to the final decision of a court or jury. In this case the U. S. Supreme Court deals for the first time with the question of the consti tutionality of compulsory vaccination. The following points should be noted: 1. The decision sustains the exercise of the power with reference to adults; by implication this sanctions the requirement as applied to children attending school. 2. The case does not decide, that the power can be exercised where there is neither prevalence nor danger of smallpox. No case appears to have arisen in any state calling for a deliverance upon the question, whether, in the absence of an emer gency adults can be required to submit to vacci nation. 3. The decision recognizes that the requirement would not be enforceable against a person who was not a fit subject for vaccination. 4. The decision cannot control state courts with reference to the question whether and to what extent the power of local or administrative author ities to require vaccination may be implied from a