Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/626

 The Green Bag

596

"Employers’ Liability Policies.” By Charles F. Krone. 44 American Law Review 513 (July-Aug). Viewing this form of insurance as opposed to public policy; notable for keen analysis. "Employers' Liability and Compensation Legislation." By Hon. Cyrus W. Phillips. 17 Case and Comment 167 (Sept.). Describin the chief features of this year's New York legislation. "The Recent Amendment of the Labor Law." Editorial. 22 Bench and Bar 45 (Aug.).

Setting forth the provisions of chapter of New York. "Work-Accidents bility." By Crystal

effect of the princi l 352 of the Laws of 1 10 and Employers’ Lia Eastman. Survey, v.

24, p. 788 (Sept. 3). Evidence.

See Procedure.

_

Federal and State Poworl. "The Pro gressives, Past and Present." By Theodore Roosevelt. Outlook, v. 96, p. 19 (Sept. 3). This is Mr. Roosevelt's Osawatomie speech, with some additions. The gist of it is a plea for the extension of governmental activity to bring about better social and economic conditions. Emphasis is laid u on the need of more affective federal contro of corpora tions. See Conservation of Natural Resources, Government. Fourteenth Amendment. See Government. Government. “On the question of the Validity of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." By H. D. Money. 71 Central Law journal 112 (Aug. 19). The more important points raised here are (1) that the Constitution calls for the proposal of amendments by “two-thirds of both houses,"

not

by two-thirds of a quorum

present; (2) that the amendment was adopted y a vote of 33 Senators in the aﬂirmative, there bein only 44 Senators resent of the total mem

rship of 52;

(3) t at this being

"a union of indestructible states" (Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700) the three-fourths necessary for ratiﬁcation meant three-fourths of 37 states; (4) that the constitutional right

of ten states to “a republican form of govern ment" was violated when the Union com lled them to accept the Fourteenth Amen ment by the exercise of military force under the reconstruction policy;

(5) that the consent

given by these ten states to the amendment was not the free consent contemplated by the Constitution; (6) that the votes of Ohio and New jersey could not be counted, because

they rescinded their ratiﬁcation before a three-fourths vote was secured;

(7) that 12

of the 37 states did not vote affirmatively on the amendment.

Were such ints as these ever to be pre sented to the upreme Court for adjudication, it is not conceivable that the Court would ﬁnd itself greatly embarrassed in ﬁnding a way to override Mr. Money's objections. If we can sup se that some of the points would be sustained, they would amount only to a disclosure of technical defects in the procedure by which the amendment was adopted, and

it is inconceivable that an amendment that has been acquiesced in for over forty years, and treated as the letter of the Constitution,

should now be set aside on the und of irregularities in its adoption. e Court would ﬁnd itself without any precedent for a judicial repeal of the long established letter of the Constitution, and could invoke the doctrine of fprescription if there were no other Way out o the dilemma. Vattel said that “the tranquillity of the epic, the safety of states, the happiness 0 the human race, do not allow that the possesions, empire, and other rights of states should remain un certain," and it is hard to see why a state should have a prescriptive right in the posses sion of its own territory, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, and should not have a similar right in the political status of its citizens.

For in the latter case, as in

the former, the denial of such a right could only result in disturbing rights and titles long regarded by the people as settled. “The Three Last Amendments to the Constitution of the United States." By E. H. Randle, LL.D. 44 American Law Review 561 (July-Aug). This writer's view is assuredly incorrect when he says: “Suppose a bill should be assed by two-thirds of Con s and three ourths of the states, that t e trial by ‘ury or the habeas corpus should be stricken é-orn the Constitution. I think no judge in the Union would consider it valid, and that it

could be made valid only by the indorsement of every state in the Union." “Constitutional Developments in Foreign Countries during 1908 and 1909." By W. F. Dodd. 4 American Political Science Review

325 (Aug). This informing article is largely concerned with constitutional changes in the countries of Europe, but other nations are touched upon, such as the Commonwealth of Australia and the South African Union. “If—An Exposition of the Sovereign Political Power of Organized Business." By Lincoln Steﬁens. Everybody's, v. 23, p. 291 (Sept). Because Mr. Morgan is su reme in Wall street, he is su rerne in the nited States, a es Mr. Ste ens. othing is said about the limitations of Mr. Morgan's power. The author, moreover, is working up a commonplace of history into what is meant to be a sensational disclosure.