Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/132

 The Green Bag

120

ciple uninﬁuenced by authority, invariably speak of the law of the place of contracting as the law that overns. So strong is this feeling, that the orm of statement of a dif ferent rule often shows its inﬂuence. . . . "A second point to be noticed is that the adoption of any other rule than that of the place of making is to be referred deﬁnitely to the authority of one man. The rule that the intention of the parties shall govern, either laid down in this simple form or coupled with some legal presumption as to the intention, ma be directly traced back, through the eary American cases or the English cases, to the dictum of Lord Mansﬁeld in Robinson v. Bland (2 Burr. 1077) and, as has been seen, was derived by him from the doctrines of the civil law. The other rule, that the law of the place of performance governs, may be traced directly to the statement of Story in in his Conﬂict of Laws. . . . "The present tendency, greatly stimulated by the late English and federal cases, is

toward the adoption of the law intended by the arties. . . . " far as one can determine the prevailing rule, the grouping seems to be as follows : “States adopting the law of the place of making: Colorado, Indiana, Maryland (?), Massachusetts, Tennessee, West Virginia. “States adoptin the law of the lace of

How opposed is it to the opinion of the Su preme Court of the United States itself that ‘The State still retains an interest in one's welfare, however reckless one may be. The whole is no greater than the sum of all the parts, and when individual health, safety

and welfare are sacriﬁced, or ne lected, the state must suffer.’ (Holden v. ardy, 169 U. S. 366.). . . "It is, in fact, doubtful whether the owner ship of land, or even the right to carry on business, was at any time in our legal history absolute and unrestricted. It was certainly not so under the feudal system and in feudal England, nor even in the Saxon and English

England which came before. The consti tutional provisions to the effect that ‘no person shall be de rived of life, liberty or

property without ue process of law.’ and that ‘ rivate property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation being made

therefor,‘

and

which

guarantee

the

‘equal protection of the laws,’ could certainly have never been intended to authorize private uses which were unsocial in their nature. They were merely intended to prevent legis lative action which was such. The doctrine of the Spite Fence cases (Letts v. Kessler, 54 Ohio St. 73, and cases cited in notes to this case in 40 L. R. A. l77),—indeed, and of the

Louisiana (.P), aine (P), Mississippi. Michigan, New Ham shire (F), New Jersey, Ohio, Penn sylvania, uth Dakota. "States adopting the law intended by the parties: England and the English colonies,

Pennsylvania Court, in the case of Hague v. Wheeler (157 Pa. St. 324, 27 Atl. Rep. 714), except in so far as the latter case concedes the right of the legislature to interfere on behalf of the consuming public, is socially wrong. It is based on an individualism which has no foundation in legal history and which this age will not tolerate."

Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin; and, in usu cases, also the Federal courts, Alabama, eorgia,

“Water-Power Sites on the Public Domain." By Hon. Richard A. Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior. American Review of Reviews, v. 41, p. 47 (_Ian.)

rformance: Ala ama, Arkansas (.), Cali ornia (?), Geor ‘a, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio and Tenn essee.” Conservation of Natural Resources. “The Conservation of our Natural Resources and

of Our National Strength and Virility."

By

Prof. Andrew Alexander Bruce. 58 Univ. of Pa. Law Um'v. Review 125 (Dec.). “When

Mr.

Tiedman,

in

his

admirable

work on the ‘State and Federal Control of Persons and Property,‘ said :-—‘The police wer of the Government cannot be brought into operation for the purpose of exacting obedience to the rules of morality and banish ing vice and sin from the world. The moral laws can exact obedience onl in fora con scientiaz. The municipal law as only to do with trespasses. It cannot be called into play in order to save one from the evil con sequences of his own vices, for the violation

of a right by the action of another must exist or be threatened in order to justify the inter ference of law,—he no doubt stated what, for a long time, was held to be an established

rule. How opposed is the rule, however, to any healthy national growth, and how grounded in the fatuities of mediaavalism.

“We seem to be in a measure at the thresh old of hydro-electric development on the public domain, and much de nds upon the right solution of these pro lems, and es pecially upon the legislation governing the disposition of power sites on the public lands. . . . "The essential features of such proposed legislation are not so much in time limita tions and in the rates and charges imposed for the use or privilege as in preserving a reasonable control and supervision that will not retard the investment of capital, but will

guard against the abuse of the privilege ac corded by the Government." "Water Powers of the South." By Henry A. Pressey. American Review of Reviews, v. 41, p. 68 (Jan). Consolidations of water power companies “will be to the advantage of the states con cerned. . . . But the owners of the powers should be com elled to act under most care ful legal regu tions made and inforced by the general government or by the various states."