Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/311

 Review of Periodicals great interest. It probably marks the limit of the legislation which can at the present time be expected from the federal government. and it necessarily leaves great ﬁelds un touched.“ The author, however, does not regard with favor any form of liability act:— "A liability law simply means law-suits, delays, aggravations, and, worse than all of these, absolute inequality of operation. One jury will ﬁx the corn nsation at one sum, the next jury at anot er sum, and anything like adequate prearrangement to meet such liabilities becomes obviousl impracticable. . . . "Another t diﬁicu ty with a mere liability act Is that it does not dispense with the economic waste of litigation, or eliminate the hard feelings and anta onisms between employer and employee whic result from the same cause. Such legislation, moreover, leaves a large class of cases un provided for. "The most rational solution of the whole difficulty under resent conditions appears to me to be foun in the eﬁorts of those who

are attempting to induce both emplo er and employee, in consideration of the un oubted advantage to each of them, to unite in fur nishing an adequate insurance in view of the

exigencies of the employment, and to elimi nate entirely the question of legal liability, which is not likely to be settled to the satis faction of either of them. "It will be a matter of sincere regret if it shall rove that the contract clause of the new fe eral Em loyer's Liability Act will interfere with su arrangements.’ “Compensation for Personal Injuries." By Hon. Addison C. Harris. 3 Lawyer and Banker 30 (Feb.). “Whenlthe people at la e come to fully understand that in all pub 'c utility cases, and largely in all cases of negligence, in the end they pay the verdicts; and that these are dissipated; and that they more or less supply by public and private aid the means to support disabled workmen and their fami lies, it will not belong until they ﬁnd a way to relieve themselves on account of any con stitutional embarrassment, and to reach better

results than now prevail. The people make the laws as they want them. Just when, or in what form this advance will come, one cannot at present foretell. But in time it will come, and abide." Extradition. “Inadequacy of the Present Federal Statute Regulating Interstate Rendi tion." By Wilbur Larremore. 10 Columbia Law Review 208 (Man).

“In addition to the conﬂict of state deci sions the eneral confusion is intensiﬁed by ‘state le 's tron. These statutes are usually rntende merely as practice acts and most of them regulate the nting and determina tion of a plications or discharge on habeas corpus. rverse and discordant systems of procedure in themselves are evils and, more over, state judges, acting under the supposed

291

sanction of state statutes, have im ugned the substantive spirit of the federal w. Such a decision was that in People ex rel. Ryan v. Conlr'n, at a Special Term of the New York Supreme Court (N. Y. 1895, 15 Misc. 303).

‘Enough has been said to show the neces sity of a comprehensive and complete federal statute deﬁning individual rights, more spe ciﬁcally asserting the authority of the federal government, supplying additional federal machinery and regulating procedure on habeas corpus. . . . It rs believed that the elaborate scheme of le ‘ lation now sug ested is as amply and in isputably within ngressional power as are the radical and wide-reaching systemsof commercial regulation based upon 1: e interstate commerce clause." Federal and State Powers. "Swift v. Tyson; Uniformity of Judge-Made State Law in State and Federal Courts." By Henry Scho ﬁeld, Professor of Law in Northwestern Uni versity. 4 Illinois Law Review 533 (Man). “It seems as if the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be able to display legal wit and courage enough, and it does not require ve much of either, to extricate itself, and t country, out of the barbarism of the separate and tribal jud e-made state laws of the B dians, isigoths and Romans, into whi it blindly plun ed itself and the country, headlong, after t e death of Sto, J., contrary to the opinion of Story, . in Swr' v. Tyson. If it is not able, or lac the courage, to extricate itself, and the country, out of the mess of barbaric plurality of judge-made state law it has inﬂicted on the country, then Congress ought to lend a help ing hand by enla ' g the court's appellate jurisdiction over t e state courts, enabling it to give practical eﬁect to Article VI of the Constitution, and to the privileges and im munitiesgclause and equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution as applied to the conflicting judge-made state laws of state and federal courts. ' Freedom of 00111711“. "Constitutional Labor Legislation." By Prof. Ernst Freund. 4 Illinois Law Review 609 (Apr.). The following test for the constitutionality of statutes may be not less useful than original :— .

‘ After the eight-hour law for miners had been sustained, the disapproval of the ten hour law for bakers was, to say the least, a grave inconsistency. The course of de cisrons in the matter of hours of labor reveals a judicial censorship which is based upon no ﬁxed principle. . . . The substitu tion of some intelligible and uniform principle of control is therefore a require ment of policy as well as of justice. The analogy of the appellate review of judicial decisions of fact suggests such a principle, a proved by long‘ experience. Applied to t e statutes in question, It would mean that there must have been evidence of facts within the reach of the legislature