Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/547

 516

The Green Bag

a sense of immediate responsibility, and this responsibility will be strengthened by the fact that the members of party committees, if candidates for re-election, must submit themselves to the voters at the same time as the candidates for nomination whom they have proposed." Government. "The Increased Control of State Activities by the Federal Courts." By Robert Bruce Scott. American Political Science Review, v. 3, p. 347 (Aug.). "This paper addresses itself to a considera tion of whether the recent use of injunctions by federal courts as to state laws is an un warranted exercise of power over the states by the federal government. . . .The question became of greatest interest in connection with the case of ex parte Young (209 U. S. 123), decided by the United States Supreme Court, March 23, 1908. It was there held that the Attorney-General of Minnesota might be enjoined at the suit of individual stock holders of a railroad from using the state courts to enforce an unconstitutional rate law which affected the state only in its general welfare. . . . "The court had held in Davis & Farnum Manufacturing Company v. Los Angeles (189 U. S. 218) and in Dobbins v. Los Angeles (195 U. S. 223) that where irreparable injury will be inflicted on property rights through a void law or ordinance, an injunction will issue to restrain its enforcement by criminal proceedings, and the earlier case of Smyth v. Ames (169 U. S. 466) had enjoined proceed ings by indictment to compel obedience to the Nebraska rate act; so that in applying the remedy of injunction to criminal as well as civil cases, upon the usual grounds of equitable jurisdiction, the Young case estab lished no new precedent. . . . "The annual output of American legis latures is said to be 15,000 laws. Overlegislation and bad legislation are crying evils of the times. With state legisla tures dealing with new and complicated legal and economic problems, usually without expert knowledge or experience, and with much popular (and often proper) hostility to great corporations, it is not strange that many defective and illegal acts are passed. . . . "De Tocqueville, writing in 1832, said: 'If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that of the states at the present day its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. As often as steady resistance is offered to the federal government, it will be found to yield.' "Happily, this prophecy did not come true, and that it was not fulfilled is due in no small measure to the jealous way in which the federal courts have safeguarded the authority and powers of the national government, of which the Young case is a conspicuous ex ample. To have decided that case otherwise would have been in effect to limit the Four teenth Amendment so as to make it read:

No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its juris diction the equal protection of the laws, unless it shall pass an act for that purpose, in which case the prohibitions of this amendment shall not be operative." Another article on a live topic taken from the law of the American commonwealth is the following:— "The Initiative and Referendum is Not Constitutional." By D. C. Allen. 69 Central Law Journal 148 (Aug. 27). One of the Nestors of the Missouri bar here contributes views which are of great interest. He says in part:— "The initiative and referendum, coming from socialism, necessarily brings with it the atmosphere and vices of socialism, and among these is the principle that each man possesses, as his birthright, not merely an equal right of being governed, but an equal right of gov erning others. It connects the right to govern, not with capacity, but with birth. It is a principle which ignores the inequality established by nature between the mental powers and moral qualities of men. Domina tion, under such a principle, is that of in feriors over superiors in intellect and morals, which is universally conceded by the best thinkers to be a tyranny equally violent and unjust. As already indicated, such a prin ciple cannot agree with the spirit and purpose of representative government—the spirit and purpose actuating such men as Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and others in framing our federal Constitution." The following article throws light on the origin of the President's Cabinet:— "Historical Significance of the Term 'Cabi net' in England and the United States." By Henry Barrett Learned. American Political Science Review, v. 3, p. 329 (Aug.). "The financial requirements especially con spicuous during Washington's first term, the problems of our commercial and foreign rela tions, the frontier questions involving our attitude to the Indians as well as to British and Spanish neighbors—all these and other matters called not only for the direction of a sagacious President, but also for the assistance of qualified experts. . . . "There is no evidence but the term to show that in characterizing the President's advisers we took into account anything but the superficial resemblance to the English institution. What in all probability we did was to adopt a well-recognized Engfish term, the significance of which so far as the average man was concerned had been pretty well settled in the seventeenth century." Great Britain. "The Lords and the Bud get." By Harold Spender. Contemporary Review, v. 96, p. 129 (Aug.). "Will the House of Lords throw out the Budget? That is the question which is at