Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

its proper organization and incorporation into the Union of States. Mr. Webster contended for this construction of the constitutional authority and the power of congress over the acquired territory. And congress has assumed the authority and followed this practice from the Louisiana Purchase to the present time.

"The clear distinction between a State and a territory thus drawn at the very outset of our career and the principles then established that congress was free to govern the dependencies of the United States in such manner as it saw fit; that the government it granted need not be republican, even in form; that men might be taxed without any representation in the taxing body, stripped absolutely of the franchise, and ruled by officials not of their own choice have never been departed from and have often been confirmed" (Prof. J. B. McMaster, Forum, December).

Nevertheless, we must remember that as against the spirit of the Constitution precedent will not stand.

As to what constitutes incorporation in the sense intended, where used in these treaties, there seems to be a wide difference of opinion. Chief Justice Marshall construed the term, as used in the treaty for the Louisiana territory, as a promise to admit to Statehood. But Mr. Justice White says:

"The minutest analysis of the Louisiana treaty fails to disclose any promise of Statehood."

And this latter construction is more nearly right, if viewed in the light of those early experiences. We have, however, followed the direction of the

former.

The treaty-making power of our government has no authority in itself to incorporate, although it may agree that this shall be done under certain conditions, and among most conditions is always present the question of assent of Congress.

Nor does incorporation take place by a mere ratification of the treaty. It must be effected by some law, and act of Congress is that law, under the Constitution. Congress is merely the vehicle of construction and brings the acquired territory within the sphere of influence of the Constitution by means of its power of construction.

At the bottom of this difficulty is the social status of the inhabitants of the acquired territory. It was a serious question, first met by the proposed incorporation of the people of the Louisiana Purchase, and the commissioners were instructed by Mr. Madison to get the territory, but not to agree

"To incorporate the inhabitants of the hereby ceded territory with the citizens of the United States, being a provision which cannot now be made."

It was found that to insist upon this proviso might result in defeating the effort to acquire the

[ocr errors]

territory, so it was conceded that the inhabitants of this territory should be incorporated into the United States

"As soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal Constitution."

Observe the different wording of this same clause in the treaty for the cession of Porto Rico:

*"The civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded shall be determined by congress." This illustrates the growth of the theory of expansion.

Thus beginning with the Louisiana Purchase, in 1803, we have acquired by the means recognized by the law of nations, and with but small expenditure of money, the Floridas from Spain in 1819; Texas from Spain and Mexico by adverse title in 1845; California and New Mexico acquired by treaty with Mexico in 1848; and more territory from Mexico again in 1853; the Guano Islands, 1856; Alaska was ceded by Russia, 1867; the Hawaiian Islands, 1898; in 1900 Great Britain and Germany renounced to the United States all rights which they had or claimed to a large portion of the Samoan group of islands; add to this list the more recent acquisitions of Porto Rico, Philippines, Cuba and the Danish Islands, in all probability, and we may realize, perhaps, what the precedent in the Louisiana Purchase has done for this nation.

Whether consistent with our political system, as it was understood by the framers of the Constitution and Jefferson, Madison and Marshall, there has been a silent, but, it may be, a natural growth of the doctrine of territorial expansion not unlike the growth of nature as exhibited in the forest tree.

Up to a certain time in this growth we enlarged only through contiguous accessions. We are now called upon to adopt the colonial system in relation to our possessions far beyond the seas and to hold and govern them in the same way as does England some of her South African possessions, or to extend to the inhabitants, composed of alien and mixed races, the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution to our citizens at home.

When Jefferson, as chief adviser of President Monroe, was considering the matter of accessions to our territory and looked towards Cuba as the most promising addition, his ambition for extended territory, and hence political prestige, appealed to him as of the first consequence. The matter of how to govern the inhabitants of this acquired territory was of secondary importance. In a letter to President Monroe, October 24, 1823, he wrote as follows:

"Do we wish to acquire to our confederacy any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidly confess that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States. The control which, with Florida Point, this

island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico IS LAW A FIELD FOR WOMAN'S WORK? and the countries and isthmus bordering on it,

as well as all those whose waters flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political well being."

But, while Jefferson was ambitious in the desire for extending the territorial limits of the United States, this desire was well seasoned with the sense of protection to the young republic which his hand had so well helped to fashion.

Its territorial expansion was to be along the line of greatest strength, with the Monroe doctrine as its guide.

"This sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of

time.

Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe

to intermeddle with Cisatlantic affairs." From all this becomes apparent the condition we have reached in our national progress towards empire, respecting the conflict of authority between congress and the Constitution. Vitally important as this question surely is to this government, it is by no means new to us. It has been a disturbing element in our governmental policy for many years, and now Mr. Justice Brown says it is irreconcilable, viewed in the light of the interpretation of the Constitution by Jefferson and Madison, and that in which congress now assumes authority to act. And it is not now so much a question of party as of national expediency that we apply in interpreting the Constitution. As we have grown away from its early lessons, we have lost somewhat of the reverence our forefathers had for that instrument, and it has been made to

respond to our will as represented in the acts of Congress many times.

With our chief Federal Court at loggerheads over this question of authority, Congress is sure to assume

an advance of authority on the plea of political expedient, and, as before has happened, the Federal Court when called upon to determine the right must

uphold such action on the same plea of expediency. It is no uncommon thing in political economics this matter of a representative body, such as Congress, usurping the authority which it lacks organically. Under our form of government Congress is an important factor, but is at all times controlled not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the Constitution. The theory is that the Constitution is supreme. The British Empire has a constitution also, but the acts of its parliament are supreme.

The student of politics at all curious will find food for reflection in the contemplation of possibilities made probable through changes of political

conditions.

P. L. EDWARDS.

WASHINGTON, D. C., December, 1901.

The following is the address on the above subject made before the American Bar Association, at its Denver meeting, by Mr. William P. Rogers, of the Indiana State University:

I make no apology for bringing before the section of legal education the question embraced in the subject of this paper. While it has never before been presented to us collectively for discussion, or otherwise, each of us, doubtless, has been called upon to answer it for someone whose chosen life work depended largely upon the answer given. It is of increasing importance and will arise more frequently within the next few years than ever before. It is of interest to the bench and bar, because women are not only asking admission to practice, but are rapidly entering our ranks and practicing at our bars.

It is of interest to our law schools, because to at least sixty-four of our one hundred and two schools have women applied and been admitted to the study of law. And they have not only applied, but have entered and studied and carried away honors and degrees. More than three hundred women have been admitted to practice law in the United States within the last twenty-five years. Not all these, perhaps, are practicing in courts, but very many of them are, and the others, like many of the men who have been admitted to the bar, find it more congenial and, perhaps, more profitable to confine themselves to the work of the office. But

they are none the less lawyers, doing the work of the legal profession. This does not include a large rumber of female clerks doing legal work in lawyers' offices all over the country.

There were, during the past year, in our law schools, about two hundred women studying law. And, while the increase of law students has, within the past five years, been much larger than that of most other professions, the per cent of increase during the same time of female law students has

been double the per cent of increase of male law

students. This may be largely accounted for in

the fact that our schools have been open for women for a much shorter time than to men; yet it remains an interesting phase of our question. Besides the large number of law schools where men and women work together in the same classes, there are two schools, one in Washington, the other in New York, where special work is laid out for women, who compose the entire membership of such classes. There are several organizations, prominent among which is the Woman's Legal Education Society of New York city, formed and conducted for the purpose of advancing the legal education of women. So the question of women in law is neither forced nor theoretical. It is both real and practical, touching the lives and life work of some of our most noble and most intellectual women.

they can successfully compete with men, make for themselves an independent support and, perchance a fortune, why shall they not enter the law for the purpose of trying their fortunes there? Well, enter it they will in fact, they have already done so, with, perhaps, indifferent success. While there may be plausible reasons presented to prove that women should not enter into active practice in our courts, surely one cannot at this late day say that they shall not be educated in the law, if their ambitions and inclinations lead them in this direction.

In our schools and colleges they have long been of work which so recently have been held sacred discriminated against. Only within the last half to men, and when they find that in such work century have they been admitted to those sacred precincts of higher learning, whose teachings, it was believed, only men could grasp. But here they have shown a mental power and alertness unsurpassed by the young men of their college classes, and it is now, on all hands, conceded that higher education is adapted alike to the sexes. It is only a few years since all the professions were closed to women. They could consistently do general housework, cooking and sewing, but beyond such as this they ventured at their peril. But when its was discovered that they were capable of learning all the highest branches, it was soon known that they could teach, and, to their credit and the advantage of the children, they have for years been in control of the common schools all over the country.

The schoolmaster with his birch rod government has given place to an army of more than two hundred and eighty-four thousand splendid women, whose examples and teachings in the school-rooms of our land have saved us the necessity of larger armies of a more belligerent character in other fields of our government. Step by step they have taken higher position in the educational world, till to-day there is no course.in the college curriculum which they have not mastered and do not teach. In our high schools, public and private, there are fourteen thousand nine hundred and forty-nine female teachers. In our institutions of higher education there are one thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight female professors and instructors, besides one thousand four hundred and fifty-six female professors in colleges for women.

There are thirty-seven thousand five hundred and five female students pursuing work in our colleges and universities. There are one hundred and thirtytwo colleges for women alone, with an attendance of eighteen thousand four hundred and fifteen students. Having mastered the field of general and higher education our women have entered the domain of technical and professional work. As pulpit orators they have for many years proven themselves capable.

In 1899 one hundred and fifty-six women enrolled in the theological schools of our country. In this field there is an opportunity for work which bids fair to attract many of our best educated women. But the medical profession has been most atrractive to the women. In it they have won fame and more of fortune than in any other work. There were one thousand four hundred and thirty-six female students enrolled in the medical schools of the United States in 1899, besides eight thousand nine hundred and seven studying to become professional nurses. Aside from teaching, the medical profession, with its collateral work of nursing, seems destined to attract more of the women and better adapted to them than any other.

Our much vaunted assertion that a knowledge of the law makes one a better citizen certainly has in it no sex limit. Whether or not, we should at least encourage their attendance in our law schools, that they may, in learning law, thereby acquire an important part of a liberal education. It would seem, indeed, that one's education, in these days of numerous law schools, is incomplete until such a course in law has been taken as will give one a general view of our legal system. For there is no condition in life where the law does not enter with its commands and restraints. It prescribes our rights as infants, never loses sight of us from the cradle to the grave, and kindly distributes our estates when we are dead. The law seeks to control all those of different race, color, condition and sex who come within its domain. Surely it is important that all should know, at least in a general way, what this law is and what is their relation to it. If so, the doors of our law schools should not be closed to a class composing in numbers more than half our population, but should stand open for all who show themselves, by preliminary training, competent to enter.

The growing sentiment in favor of the study of law, among both men and women, will doubtless, within the next five years, open the doors of all our law schools to women. As there is no sex limit to justice and equity, there will be none to the knowledge of their rules and the privileges of the schools where they may be learned.

The story of woman's admission to the bar in the United States is one of contest and struggle. We, their brethren, being already within the gates, with legal power to keep those out who were of opposite sex, have not extended a very hearty welcome to our sisters in law. If the road has been opened for them to enter, it has been only because, with their own hands, they have torn down the obstacles and cleared away the rubbish.

Women who have undertaken the practice and have continued in it for a few years are usually quite enthusiastic on the subject, even insisting that active court practice is as fitting for women as men. The determination to succeed, the fascination that legal work, new to women, brings the belief that legal disabilities of women have been But when the women have entered all these fields largely removed by the influence of women lawyers,

and that by their influence complete legal and po- | that, after all, women must be given freedom to litical equality of the sexes is to be obtained, stimu- settle the matter for themselves? Experience alone late the young women to enter the profession and can determine their adaptation to the profession, give to them an enthusiasm which even a dearth of and they are surely entitled to the test. If they citizens cannot suppress. But many of the women fail, their better judgment will readily dictate the who have independently entered the active practice, wise course to pursue. If they succeed, and the including office and court work, find clients as predicted dangers to home and motherhood do not willing to trust their business to them as to men of come, let us, with them, rejoice in their success. equal experience. They have not yet been long We can do no less than give them every possible enough in the profession to develop women lawyers opportunity to determine for themselves how best equal to Marshall, Webster or Choate, but those in to make the most of life. the practice probably average well when compared with the men, both in ability and income.

Mrs. Catherine Waugh McCulloch, who practices law with her husband in Chicago, writing concern ing the income of women lawyers, says: "That it is difficult to discover, but I believe but few of them have received as much as $5,000 a year. One told me of a $10,000 fee, and I know of some who have earned and collected as much as $2,000 to $3,000 per year, but this was only after five or ten years' experience. When there are women lawyers of twenty to thirty years' practice there will be larger fees. But even in the early years of practice the fees of the women average fairly well with the fees paid men of similar experience for the same kind of work."

She further writes: "Law is excellent as a study for women, and in the practice sex is not necessarily a disability. In securing business, sex is as yet a hindrance, for some people have not yet discovered that women can have legal ability. From my own experience of fifteen years I have become so well satisfied that law is a proper sphere for women that I should be willing to have my daughter choose it for her vocation."

From Miss Isabella M. Pettus, who has for three years practiced in the courts of New York, I have received much information concerning the practice of law by women in that city. Many of them there have won success, not only in office work, but at the bar, before courts and juries. These women, many of them wives and mothers, have been none the less faithful to these "heaven-appointed" offices than before they entered the profession, or than their sisters who, in other honorable professions or lines of work, help to make and keep the home. Miss Pettus, in a strong presentation in favor of woman's fitness and right to practice law, says: “I would condemn heartily the course of a wife or mother who would neglect her home and children to practice in the courts; I would praise, unreservedly, any earnest, intellectual woman who takes up toil unsevered from tranquility' and fits herself for a professional life, for the love of law and of learning, thanking God that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have given woman freedom to work out her own life, as she will, in honor and righteousness."

And when the question in hand is examined from all sides, is not the answer found in the suggestion

We may consistently suggest, however, that there is no other profession like the practice of the law. It is a continual contest. The assertions from the minister in the pulpit are usually unquestioned and unanswered. His critics speak only in his absence. His hearers have assembled because they are in sympathy with his views, and expect to agree with what he may say. So with the work of the physician. His errors may neither be all buried nor forgotten, but he can rely upon the assurance that no one else will be employed to continually hunt for and expose them to public inspection. The teacher. stands in advance of his pupils, teaching them things they have not yet learned. If, perchance, some leader of the class points out an erroneous statement, it may at once be corrected, with little embarrassment. But the propositions of a lawyer in court are made in the presence of a shrewd opponent, whose business it is to see the vulnerable places, point out the errors and inconsistencies and openly criticise the position assumed. His address to the jury is to be publicly answered and his conclusions refuted. He must be an antagonist because his client is. This is the life of the lawyer in court. It cannot be otherwise to win success. The nervous strain borne by the lawyer in a long, closely and often bitterly contested case demands not only mental but physical vigor which few men possess. At the end of such a contest, where, if not the life or liberty of one's client, his property, at least, is lost, the attorney must be strong indeed who can, unperturbed, proceed with the demands made upon him by other pressing business. Are women so constituted that they can successfully live such a life? Is such a life desirable for a woman, where this strife and mental contest must be principally with men, even though she be strong, learned and experienced? Cannot a woman with such qualities utilize her life to better advantage elsewhere? Is there any crying need or pressing demand for women to practice in our courts? What great reforms, what betterment to society, would result from their assuming such onerous work?

To the woman who would enter the law, intending to take up its practice as a profession, these and many like questions must come for answer. But the answer must come from her. We have no right to deprive her of the privilege of personal experience. She has the right, and should have the privilege, of entering the bar as a practitioner

on purely personal grounds, although there be no public demand or crying need for her. She should, in this matter, be just as free and independent as her brother, with the right and power to choose for herself any honorable calling; but in doing so she should, like every other citizen, select that for which she is best suited and which will bring to

her and those about her the most of good and of happiness.

that such limitation would result in increased wages. A young high school graduate, therefore, must direct his energy to clerical work, and, failing in this, must live on his parents. Clerical work, with its uncertainties, and poor pay, and female competition, working for one-half the wages usually

given to men, furnish a ready explanation for many

lapses into crime.

Present and future generations of America will

THE SALVATION OF JUVENILE DELIN- rise up and call him blessed who can show a prac

QUENTS.

The jail cradle. Who rocks it? The answer is by no means an easy one. Juvenile delinquents may be divided into five classes. The first class consists of the utterly degenerate, outlaws from society, who steal because of an irresistible impulse. They exist by plunder, and this abject condition is the direct result of a childhood undisciplined by any moral or religious training.

The second class comprises those who are more dangerous to society than the first, because they are more systematic in their rascality and more adept in covering their tracks. The well-dressed pickpocket belongs to this class.

tical way to save the "child of the streets" from becoming a thief and a vagabond, and to rescue the girl beauty of the slums from a life of sin and degradation.

To prove my assertions, the public records of commitments to Elmira reformatory show that ninety per cent of the delinquents never learned a trade.

How to treat these classes and derive successful results therefrom, is the mighty problem with which government officials at Washington are now wrestling. A bureau of statistics for the investigation of criminal records has been established, and the legal profession is curiously waiting for results. Let us hope that the child of the streets of the future will in our country become the upright, law-abiding and God-fearing citizen.

JOSEPH M. SULLIVAN.

Of the Suffolk (Mass.) Bar.

The third class consists of the children of neglectful parents, who have acquired a habit of petty thieving while young, and, owing to the carelessness of their parents, have persisted in thieving until the habit has wholly mastered them. This class have become thieves owing to a lack of sys- POWERS OF ALDERMANIC PRESIDENT IN tematic moral and religious training.

The fourth class consists of nobody's claim." I mean those who are driven into crimes in consequence of their utter destitution, and thrown upon the world in a state of abject misery. To this class belong children brought up and cared for in public institutions.

The fifth class are those who live in a condition of squalid misery, yet, under pretences of gaining an honest livelihood, are ever on the alert to practice all kinds of rascality, and profit therefrom. An example of this class is found in the thief peddler, a character much more common in Europe than in the United States.

The great increase in the number of juvenile delinquents is easily explained by the abolition of the apprentice system. The result of abolishing the apprentice system in America has been to flood the country with young men without a trade and with insufficient learning to obtain a livelihood. A young man graduating from the common schools of this country, who is unable to use both hands and brain in unison, is a hopeless derelict in the stream of life. The apprentice system was abolished solely through selfish motives, namely, the limitataion of the numbers of the respective crafts, and the hope

CITIES OF THE SECOND CLASS.

A case of peculiar interest to cities of the second class in this State was recently decided by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. The litigation grew out of the action of the president of the common council of the city of Albany in deciding a tie vote on the designation of city that since the vote was a tie and no designation was papers in favor of the Press Company, on the ground made, the Argus remained city paper, application was made for a mandamus to the clerk of the common council to deliver to the Argus for publication all papers required by law to be published in the city's official papers. This application was argued before Justice Chester in Special Term, Amasa J. Parker, Jr., assisted by Judge Andrew Hamilton, appearing for the Argus; Corporation Counsel Andrews and former Corporation Counsel William P. Rudd for the city clerk, and John F. Montignani for the Press Company. From the order denying its application the relator appealed to the Appellate Division.

The opinion, written by Justice S. Alonzo Kellogg, in which the other four members of the court concur, lays stress upon the declaration that if the president of the common council had power to vote like aldermen, the ward from which he comes would have

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »