« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
equally unfriendly popular feeling, not alone toward visions is io safeguard private rights and prevent railways, but toward corporations of every class (1). unjust discriminations. Their beneficence is not
The principles of American organic law are or- confined to a favored few, but, ex vi termini, they dained to “secure the blessings of liberty to our extend to and protect alike the humblest and the selves and our posterity," recognize the equality of mightiest, the one not more than the other. men before the law and deny the omnipotence of Legislation discriminating adversely against the the legislative branch of government. Under our employer of classes of labor, and purporting to disinstitutions, liberty is not a matter of grace, but a criminate in favor of the employe is, indeed, a recent thing of absolute and undeniable right.
innovation in American statute law, emanating from In obedience to the old and familiar maxims, societies of organized labor, though, as previously "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" and "salus suggested, other social forces have effectually conpopuli suprema lex,” every one who enters society tributed to this end. does, and must ex necessitate, surrender a portion of The usual objections to this class of legislation are: what may, for want of a better term, be denominated First, it is not a valid exercise of the police power his natural rights; but this limitation is only an ex- of the States, as limited by the State and Federal tension of his rights (2). The good of the whole is Constitutions; second, the legislative basis of classithe supreme good, for from this comes the greatest fication is an improper one in, contravention of good to the individual. If one may exercise an un- constitutional principles. limited and uncontrolied dominion over his property The right of a State to interfere with the private and an absolutely unrestrained freedom of conduct, relations of employer and employe, to make, modify regardless of the claims of society, to this extent are or prescribe the labor contract, if it exists, must arise the rights of others imperiled and infringed; and from its police power. But, in general terms, the what may seem a broader liberty is really not liberty police power of a State comprehends only the proat all, but a license for the perpetration of wrong tection of the public health and morals, the safety and oppression. Liberty and the rights of property and good order of the community, and its internal are more securely and more wisely guarded when affairs (4). It affords no ground for the invasion every member of the community recognizes the tan- of private right for other purposes, and the impositamount right of every other member of the civic tion of unwarranted burdens having no relation to organization, and regulates his conduct and exercises the public necessities. his rights in conformity thereto.
It is the privilege and, indeed, it is the duty of the With a satisfaction of these demands upon the State to make and enforce such regulations as may individual, however, society must be satisfied; for. be necessary to the protection of the health and although recognizing the breadth of the police power safety of her citizens, and adequate to the protection and its efficacy, we have seen fit to circumscribe and purification of the public morals; she has no the possibility of inordinate requisitions by provisions higher prerogatives, and the courts in England and in the fundamental law which may not be contra- America have always considered such legislation not vened by the whim or caprice of those who, per-only proper, but indispensably necessary. Of course, chance, may be drest in a little brief authority.”
the State must take notice of active social forces, of No State shall pass any law impairing the obli- conditions as they are, and limit the cravings of those gation of contracts, nor deprive any person of life, so “greedy of filthy lucre" as to sacrifice the health liberty or property without due process of law; nor of honest toilers to the attainments of their own perdeny to any person within its jurisdiction the crjual nicious ends (Tied. Lim. Police Power, p. 181); protection of the laws." The Constitutions of the but the police power being exercisable by the legisrespective States usually provide that the legislature lature, principles of the fundamental law here limit “shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens. the exercise of such power, as in any other action privileges or immunities which, upon the same ternis, within the province of that department (5). shall not equally belong to all citizens," and "that
Under the guise of the police power, legislatures no local or special laws shall be passed where a gen
have assumed to regulate and prescribe the number eral law can be made applicable” (3).
of hours which one may labor during a given period, The salutary purpose of these and similar pro- invading alike the guaranteed liberty of the employer (1) See a discussion of this subject in Dillon's, The and employe. Law of Municipal Bonds.
The organic law of every State declares as (2) State v. Noyes, 47 Me., 211; Commonwealth v. inherent one, the right of every man to acquire and Alger, 7 Cush., 53; Thorpe v. Rutland, etc., R. Co., 27 Vt., 140; New Orleans, etc., Co. v. Hart, 40 La. Ann., enjoy property; but this is merely a constitutional 474; 4 Blackstone's Com., 162; Tiedman's Lim. of the recognition of a right which existed long before ConPolice Power, sec. 1; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (1st stitutions were framed; such provisions are but the ed.), p. 739, et seq.; Cooley's Const. Limitations (6th ed.), p. 704, et seq.
(4) See cases cited in Note 2. (3) Const. of Indiana, sec. 23, art. 1; Const. of Illi- (5) Tiedman's Lim. of the Police Power, sec. 2; 18 nois, sec. 22, art. 4; Const. of New York, sec. 18, art. Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (1st ed.), p. 742; In re 3; Const. of Iowa, sec, 6, art. 1; Const. of Kansas, sec, Jacobs, 98 N. Y., 98, 108; People v. Gilson, 109 N. Y., 17, art. 2. (Such provisions are found in almost every 389, 398; In re Wilshire, 103 Fed. Rep., 620; Mugler v. State Constitution. These cited serve to illustrate). | Kansas, 123 U. S., 623, 661.
reflections of those immutable principles upon which mine by their agreement to þe mutually most advanall popular government has its support and may have tageous. The right to contract has been held to be been inserted ex abundanti cautela.
both liberty, and a property right; it is a means of Contracting parties should be left free to make acquiring and enjoying property, and an unwarranted such contracts as they may deem proper, unless the impairment of the right is a taking of property withpublic has an interest in the subject matter of the out due process of law. Liberty comprehends much contract, or some regulation becomes necessary to more than mere freedom from physical restraint, for prevent injurious consequences to others.
this is the minutest difference between the freeman Labor beyond what is merely normal exercise, is and the slave. It is a travesty to deny the right, the injurious to the health of the individual; but under liberty of one to exercise his faculties as he may provisions such as are common to American consti- choose, and as he may be able most advantageously tutions, the legislature has no power to define the to do. number of hours which one may labor during a given Not all laws which limit the number of hours period when this is taken as a fact segrated from all which a class of laborers may labor during a given others (6). If the State may prescribe the number period are unconstitutional, as being beyond the of hours which one may labor, during a given period, police power, for peculiar conditions may make such in an underground mine, may she not also prescribe a reegulation an eminently proper one. Not all emthe number of hours during which the lawyer may ployes are similarly situated; there may be important “ labor" in the preparation of his brief, the number differences in the nature of the work to be performed, of calls which the physician may make, and the num- the place of performance, or in the class of employes ber of acres of corn which the farmer may cultivate which perform the service. The police power may in a given period of time?
justify a law which limits the working day of women If one in his industrial or professional pursuits is and children engaged at employment in a factory, willing to sacrifice a degree of health to the attain- while a law which limits the number of hours which ment of laudable ends, the State can not restrain him; men may labor on a farm would, perhaps, be an unno public interest, in the legal sense, is jeopardized warranted act, resting upon no reason of which the by the impairinent of his health. The police power law can take cognizance (8). does r.ot comprehend the protection of one from the The second clause of section 6, article 16, of the consequences of his own indiscretions. The true Constitution of Utah provides that “the legislalimitation is that, one shall exercise his rights in such ture shall pass laws to provide for the health and manner as not to interfere unduly with the rights of safety of employes in factories, smelters and mines.” others. “Any law which goes beyond that principle, Under such a provision it was held by the Supreme which undertakes to abolish rights, the exercise of Court of Utah (9) that a statute limiting the period which does not involve an infringement of the rights of employment of workingmen in smelters and of others, or to limit the exercise of rights beyond underground mines to eight hours per day, except what is necessary to provide for the public welfare in cases of emergency where life or property is in and the general security, cannot be included in the imminent danger, was a law "calculated to protect police power of the government. It is a governmental the health of such laboring men,” and not beyond usurpation, and violates the principles of abstract the power which the people of the State, through justice as they have been developed under our repub- their Constitution, had declared their legislature lican institutions " (7).
“shall” exercise; and not in conflict with the The laborer is neither a non compos nor a ward of fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the the State ; he needs not the guidance or advice of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United legislature as to the number of hours which he shall States (9 1-2) affirming these decisions of the Utah work, what he shall eat and drink, or the style and court, Mr. Justice Brown speaking for the court, cut of his working clothes. He is at liberty to choose said: We have no disposition to criticise the many his own occupation and must judge for himself of authorities which hold that statutes restricting the his physical ability to perform such work for any hours of labor are unconstitutional. Indeed, we are period of time and should contract with his employer not called upon to express an opinion upon this with particular reference thereto as they may deter- subject. It is sufficient to say of them that they
(6) In re Morgan, 26 Colo., 415; S. C., 58 Pac., 1071: have no application to cases where the legislature 8. C., 47 L. R. A., 52; In re House Bill, 21 Colo., 27; s. had adjudged that a limitation is necessary for the C.;. 39 Pac., 431; Low v. Rees Printing Co., 41 Neb., preservation of the health of employes, and there 127; S. C., 59 N. W., 362; S. C., 24 L. R. A., 702; Ke J. C. Cubach, 85 Cal., 274; S. C., 9 L. R. A., 482; S. C.,
are reasonable grounds for believing that such de20 Am. St. Rep., 226; S. C., 24 Pac. Rep., 737; Seattle v. Smith, 22 Wash., 327; S. C., 60 Pac., 1120; People v. (8) Com. v. Beatty, 15 Pa. Sup. Ct., 5; Com. v. HamilOrange Co., etc., Co., 75 N. Y. Supp., 510; Wheeling, etc.,
ton, etc., Co., 120 Mass., 383. But see contra: R. Co. v. Gilmore, 8 Ohio Cir, Ct., 658; Ritchie v. The V. The People, 155 Ill. 98. People, 155 Ill., 98; Com. v. Perry, 155 Mass., 117; S. C., (9) State v. Holden, 14 Utah, 71; S. C., 37 L. R. A., 103; 28 N. E., 1126; In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y., 98; S. C., 50 Am. State v. Holden, 14 Utah, 96; S. C., 37 L. R. A., 108. Rep., 636. See, contra: People v. Lochner, 76 N. Y. See Laws of Utah, acts of 1896, sec. 1, p. 219. Supp., 396.
(9 1-2) Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S., 366, 397-398; S. C., (7) Tiedman's Lim. of the Police Power, sec. 2.
18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 383; S. C., 42 Law Ed., 780.
Ritchie Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. St., 431; 6 Atl. Rep., memory of man runneth not to the contrary."
termination is supported by the facts. The question the medium of payment. This class of legislation in each case is whether the legislature has adopted has usually singled out mining and manufacturing the statute in the exercise of a reasonable discre-companies and their employes as the objects of its tion, or whether its action be a mere excuse for an supervisory control. There may be, in some cases, unjust discrimination, or the oppression or spolia- some reason for limiting the number of hours of tion of a particular class.” Both courts held such employment, but it is difficult to see how the police enactments to be a valid exercise of the police power justifies such legislation as that above menpower of the State.
tioned (14). While this constitutional provision of Utah may Speaking against a law of this kind, the Supreme be but little more than a declaration of the Court of West Virginia said: “The property which police power, which exists without it, yet when every man has in his own labor, as it is the original construed with other provisions of its Consti- foundation of all other property, so it is the most tution, somewhat peculiar and distinctive in this sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor regard, the policy of the State is very different man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own from that of most States of the American Union.
hands; and to hinder him from employing these in Such a provision as the one above mentioned may what manner he may think proper, without injury be said to be a limitation upon usual constitutional to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most provisions, and this fact must be considered before sacred right. It is equally an encroachment both Holden v. Hardy is received as authority or argu- | upon the just liberty and rights of the workman and ment in any other jurisdiction in favor of such his employer, or those who may be disposed to emlegislation. A provision of a State Constitution can- ploy him, for the legislature to interfere with the not, of course, defeat any of the limitations imposed freedom of contract between them, as such interferby the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the ence hinders the one from working at what he thinks land, and the case is, therefore, authority in favor proper and at the same time prevents the other from of such legislation under federal limitations. employing whom he chooses ” (15).
One who engages in a business affected with a An act which prohibits persons sui juris from public interest, devoting his property to a public use, agreeing upon a medium of payment, neither involvmay be said to grant to the public an interest in such ing fraud nor tending to injure the public, is in plain use, which may become a subject of peculiar regula- violation of the fourteenthi amendment as a deprivation by the State (11). Thus, railways may be said tion of both liberty and property without due process to be property of this nature; and, therefore, a law of law. The welfare of the community does not which prescribes the number of hours in a given demand that scrip shall not be given in payment of period which the employes of such a company may wages more than public policy demands that a horse labor in the operation of its trains is perhaps a shall be exchanged only for cash, and not for another valid one, having for its aim the safety of the horse (16). public (12).
Contracting parties deal at arms' length and their Although the State may not regulate arbitrarily interests are always antagonistic, each seeking to without reference to the health, morals or safety of obtain an advantage over the other. The business the public, the number of hours to constitute a day of of the law in this regard is to prevent fraud and labor and forbid contracts of employment for a day over-reaching by unfair means, and not to deprive consisting of a different number of hours, there one of any legitimate profit that may accrue to him occurs no reason to us why the legislature may not in this exchange of labor for a price (17). It cerprescribe that, where the parties have not, by their contract, fixed a different unit of time a particular App., 565; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 111., 66;
(14) San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 4 Tex. Clv. number of hours shall constitute a day of labor (13). Commonwealth v. Perry, 155 Mass., 117; S. C. 14 Such an enactment is analogous to laws prescribing L. R. A., 325; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va., 179; S. C., standards of weights and measures which have been 10 S. E., 286; S. C., 6 L. R. A., 621; State v. Fire Creek considered valid laws “ from time whereof the Coal Co., 33 W. Va., 188; 6 L. R. A.. 359; 10 S. E., 238; tainly is a misguided sympathy that seeks to justify and mediocrity of fortune, that makes such legislasuch legislation upon the social inequalities of the tion tolerable. race, in disregard of principles which enable a legis- Organized labor may need protection from its own lature to deprive one of what is, to Americans at power, for, the assertion of a false principle to enleast, most dear. Social inequalities have their origin large the rights of a laborer may, by reaction, become in differences which legislation cannot eliminate the very means of destroying such rights. In a sysEconomy and business sagacity cannot be supplied tem composed of precedents it is essential to a proper by a legislature wliere nature has failed to give, and structure that every element of its composition harperseverance, industry and practice have failed to monize with the whole, and to build wisely is to not cultivate them.
354; Millett v. People, 117 Ill., 294; Baker v. Portland, In this category falls another class of legislation, 5 Sawyer, 566; Ramsey v. People, 142 Ill., 380; In re namely, that having reference to the manner of per- Preston, 63 Ohio St., 428; S. C., 59 N. E., 101; S. C., si forming the service, the basis of compensation and
Am. St. Rep., 642; Commonwealth v. Brown, 8 Pa. Sup.
Ct., 339; Harding v. People, 160 III., 459; S. C., 43 N, E., (11) Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113; State v. Peel 624; S. C., 52 Am. St. Rep., 344; Cooley's Const. LimitaSplint Coal Co., 36 W. Va., 802-811; People v. Lochner, tions, p. 745. Contra: Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind., 366; 76 N. Y. Supp., 396, 399.
23 N. E., 254; 6 L. R. A., 576; State v. Peel Splint Coal (12) Munn v. Illinois, supra; People v. Phyfe, 136 Co., 36 W. Vai, 802; 15 S. E., 100); S. C., 17 L R. A., 385; N. Y., 554; S. C., 23 N. E., 978; S. C., 19 L. R. A., 941. State v. Wilson, 61 Kan., 32; S. C., 58 Pac., 981. (A case which does not decide this point, but intimates (15) State v. Fire Creek Coal Co., supra. this is true.) See Wheeling, etc., R. Co. v. Gilmore, (16) State v. Loomis, 115 Mo., 307; State v. Haun, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct., 658, 664-667.
61 Kan., 146; S. C., 59 Pac., 340; 47 L. R. A., 369; State (13) People v. Phyfe, supra; McCarthy v. York, 98 v. Goodwill, supra; Frorer v. People, 141 Ill., 171; 31 N. Y., 1; l'nited States v. Martin, 94 U. S., 400; Brooks N. E., 397; S. C., 16 L. R. A., 495; Ritchie v. People, v. Cotton, 48 N. H., 50; Luske v. Hotchkiss, 37 Conn., 155 Ill., 98; S. C., 40 N. E., 454; S. C., 29 L. R. A., 79 219.
(17) Tiedman's Lim. of the Police Power, sec. 178. (18) San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, supra;
sacrifice the stability of the whole structure to what Another class of this so-called labor legislation con- may seem suited to a pleasing exterior. sists of enactments prescribing the time of payment Another very serious objection to legislation of of laborers' wages and granting unusual remedies for this class is that, admitting that such matters are the collection thereof.
embraced within the police powers of the States, the When wages have been earned they become a classification is improperly assumed. This has been credit of the wage-earner; what was before the rela
the principal objection. tion of only employer and employe has now become
Not all class legislation is unconstitutional as in that of debtor and creditor. A law giving an
conflict with the provisions of the fundamental law employe a special remedy for the enforcement of his above mentioned; nor is it sufficient that a law demand, different from and superior to other credit- operates equally upon all of a class created by the ors of the same debtor, is, it seems to us, conspicu- legislature (21), for the recognition of this as a corously opposed to that absolute equality which rect principle would give to the legislature the power pervades American institutions, and cannot be a
to arbitrarily single out individuals and govern them valid exercise of the police power. On this proposi- by an oppressive and unjust law which, in the nature tion, however, the authorities are in conflict (18).
of things, is equally applicable to others of the coinIn an opinion holding unconstitutional a law of munity whom it does not reach and to whom it does
not apply. There must be some reasonable, some this nature, the Court of Appeals of Texas said: “If the legislature, for the purpose of enforcing the pay-tinctions which inhere in the subject matter of
substantial ground of classification, based upon disment of employes' wages, can pass a law like this,
regulation, bearing a just and proper relation to the imposing twenty per cent on the amount due, does
necessities of the entire group similarly situated, exit not imply a power to make it ten times the amount cluding none, the facts of whose cases are essentially claimed? If, then, legislative power exists to pass the same (22). such a law as this, on the same principle why can the
We have not found the statement in any of the legislature not apply it to any simple debt, and, if on demand of the creditor the debtor fails to pay by class. Indeed, this would be inaccurate; for the
books that, for every purpose, laborers constitute a a given time fixed by the legislature, make him pay laborer on the farm is situated very differently from double or treble the amount accordingly as the
the laborer in an underground mine, and their neceslegislative enactment may direct? Whatever the object of such legislation, it eventuates in a decree sities for certain purposes are widely variant. But
are their necessities for all purposes equally so distaking property from one person and giving it to similar? We think they are not, and, therefore, that another” (19).
there may be legislation which is invalid, unless it Such laws emanate from the nondescript principle include the entire body of laborers (23). of paternalism, . quite out of harmony with the spirit
Numerous statutes have been enacted with special of popular liberty, and not very different from despot-reference to the employes of corporations of the ism. It introduces into American society a factor classes above mentioned. A corporation is a person greatly to he deplored, and involves the application within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment of of a principle which, if applied to the same class the Constitution, of the State Constitutions and pubwith equal but not greater force, in other respects, lic statutes, respecting property rights, when such would be bitterly resented as an unjust discrimina- a construction is not inconsistent with the evident tion, a governmental usurpation (20). It is only
purpose of the same (24). the chasm that separates labor and capital, wealth
Whether the employer is an individual, acting in his natural capacity, or a number of individuals, act
(21) Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356, 369; Gull, Leep v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 58 Ark., 407; S. C., 23
etc., Co. v. Ellis, supra, p. 159. L. R. A., 264; Commonwealth v. Perry, supra; Bauer
(22) People v. The Judge, 17 Cal., 548; Randolph v. v. Reynolds, 3 Pa. Dist. Rep., 502; S. C., 14 Pa. Co. Wood, 49 N. J. L., 85; State ex rel. v. Parsons, 40 rt. Rep., 497; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ili., N. J. L., 1; Iowa, etc., Co. v. Soper, 39 Iowa, 112. 66; Ritchie v. People, 150 Ill., 98; Gulf, etc., R. Co.
(23) Humes v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 82 Iowa, 221; V. Ellis, 165 U. S., 151. Contra: Hancock v. Yaden, Phillips v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 86 Mo., 540; State v. supra; Re House Bill 1230, 163 Mass., 589; S. C., 28 L. Loomis, 115 Mo., 307, and cases cited. R. A., 344; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, 64 Ark.,
(24) Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat., 518; Santa 83; 8. C., 37 L. R. A., 504.
Clara Co. v. Sou. Pac. R. Co., 118 U. S., 394; Pembina, (19) San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, supra. etc., Co. v. Penn., 125 U. S., 181; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. (20) Tiedman's Lim. of the Police Power, p. 571. Ellis, supra, and cases cited at p. 154.
BANKRUPTCY JURISPRUDENCE. ing in a corporate capacity, cannot furnish the basis of discrimination in favor of one or against the other.
I. The Origin, EVOLUTION AND GROWTH OF OUR The demands of a class of laborers are not varied by
BANKRUPTCY JURISPRUDENCE IN RELATION TO THE changing the employer from an individual to a body
ACT OF JULY 1, 1898. II. IMPORTANT DEcorporate (25).
CISION UNDER THE Act RENDERED IN THE SOUTHIf it is essential to the health of miners that under
ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND THE SECOND ground mines should be ventilated, it can make no
CIRCUIT. NOTES AND Cases BEARING UPON. difference whether the mine is owned and operated by an individual or by a corporation. Or, if it is essential to the welfare of a State that her laborers
The seeds of a system of mitigating the rigor with should be paid their wages at stated periods, it can
which creditors treated their debtors, must have had make no difference whether such wages are owing its origin in the remotest antiquity. In the Jewish from an individual or from a corporation. The
Constitution, which in the opinion of such a scientific necessities of the laborers and the effect upon society historian as Niebuhr, is the oldest body of law of would be the same in either case; and, hence, a classi- which we have any authentic knowledge, according to fication which rested upon nothing more than the Leviticus, chap. xxv, and Josephus Antiquities of capacity of the employer, including some and exclud- the Jews, chap. xii, section 3, the year of the Jubilee ing others, would be unconstitutional and void (26). was a time of rejoicing for slaves and debtors, the
But, of course, if the power of a corporation to former being “set at liberty,” the latter "freed from contract is limited and restricted by legislation en their debts.” Here we have the germ of an equitable acted pursuant to the reserved right to alter, amend principle founded on ethics, humanitarianism, and or repeal the corporate charter, the corporation can- wise statesmanship. The custom known
as “the not complain. Its power to contract at all is derived restoration of land,” we may note in passing, pracfrom the legislative act creating it and held at the ticed during the Jubilee year, so closely resembles legislative will under such a reservation of power. our modern“ equity of redemption " in the law of The laborer who might offer to contract with the mortgages, as to suggest more than an evolutionary corporation cannot complain that such corporation outcome of ethnologic similarities. But more of has not power to contract, for his rights are not that anon. The laws in relation to insolvent debtors interfered with in that sense of which the law would among the heathen nations in ancient times were in take cognizance (27).
accordance with the spirit of the times, characterized Laws of the general class herein are unique features by the cruelest severity. Plutarch in his life of of American legislation. By some they are said to be Solon, speaks of a thousand bondsmen, sold for debt. progressive; by others vicious. It is axiomatic that the ancient law of the twelve tables preserved by man was not made for the law, but law for the man; Aulus Gellius, is a model of protection to the yet the organic law may be declaratory of principles creditor. Its only favorable feature to the wretched of natural and inherent right which are inseparable debtor was thirty days grace previous to his delivfrom man in his proper sphere. The exigencies of ery into the hands of his creditor. After that, no no individual, or class of individuals, can be a suffi- compromise being effected, during sixty days of concient justification of measures which transgress the finement in chains, he was subjected to public ignoorganic law and jeopardize the guaranteed rights of miny on three ninth or market days, until on the last every other member of the civil polity.
day he was either put to death, or sold into foreign American liberties are lodged neither in the breast slavery. The creditors might even seize their sevof the judiciary nor in the will of the legislative; eral shares of his body. Some vestiges of this custhey have a higher sanction, the sanction of the tom still existed in the Italian states long after the whole, the sovereign people.
more humanizing influences of a milder body of law GLENDA BURKE SLAYMAKER. were introduced. Niebuhr well observes, that the Indianapolis, Ind., June, 1902.
Merchant of Venice was placed “in nexu” by his
bond to Shylock a form of legal obligation not (25) St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, 64 Ark., 83. (26) Gulf, etc., Co. v. Ellis, supra.
only discountenanced by the Mosaic Law, but un(27) Leep v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., supra; Woodson known even in the remotest times. It was a common v. State, 69 Ark., 521; S. C., 65 S. W. Rep., 465; Shaffer
ruse upon the part of the patricians of Rome, or v. Union, etc., Co., 55 Md., 74; State v. Brown, etc.,
some consul, in order to gain popularity to mitigate Co., 18 R. I., 16; S. C., 17 L. R. A., 856; Re House Bill, 28 L. R. A. (Mass.), 344; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, the rigor of the old law. About the year 494 B. C..
during the consulships of Virginius and Vetusius,
upon a revolt of the common people, the nobles were Charles O'Connor, long the leader of the Ameri- reduced to the extremity of virtually enacting a bankcan bar, once gave in his incisive way a useful ruptcy law. The plebeians were granted a remission hint to all lawyers: “A cross-examination is an of debts for insolvent debtors, the “nexum” was amusement indulged in by the very young. It is dissolved and the “Addicti” freed, but ordinarily like trying to pull the tiger out of his den. You the severity of the old law still prevailed except may pull him out, or, again, he may pull you in.” | under similar circumstances, or during a financial