ship's view was that, the vessel having been torpedoed, and every effort having been made to take her to a place of safety, she never got to a place that was safe, for she was never saved after being injured by a torpedo. Mr. Justice Rowlatt's decision met with the unqualified approval of the majority of the learned judges of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Scrutton being the dissentiente. Their Lordships held that the torpedoing of the vessel was the proximate cause of the loss, the chain of causation never having been broken from the time she was struck until she sank. Therefore the loss was a consequence of hostilities. And now the House of Lords have seen their way to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal. The learned Lords did not share the doubts that were expressed by Lord Justice Scrutton as to the legal effect of the series of circumstances that had occurred in the case. Proxima causa, they said, was not solved by the mere point of order in time, but meant proximate in efficiency. In their Lordships' opinion the explosion from the torpedo was the proximate cause of the loss, which was therefore one of the direct "consequences of hostilities." The chain of causation, they repeated, had never been broken from the time when the vessel was struck by the torpedo until she sank. Although the number of ships that continue to reach some port after having been torpedoed or mined may not be so numerous as those which sink immediately on being struck, yet that achievement is occasionally accomplished. And then the possibility of further disaster to the vessel in her injured condition is always present-a contingency which is covered by the decision in the present case. THE BALANCE OF POWER.-Mr. Balfour's reply to Count Hertling's speech in which the count contended that the balance of power is more or less an antiquated doctrine, and twitted Great Britain for being in the past the great upholder of that doctrine for the purpose of her own aggrandizement, constitutes in itself a very considerable contribution to the study which engages the attention of the jurists of the present day-the passage before their eyes from a system of international morality to a system of international positive law. "Count Hertling states," said Mr. Balfour, "that the balance of power is only another word for England's domination. That is a profoundly unhistorical method of looking at the future. This country has fought once, twice, thrice for the balance of power, and it has fought for the balance of power because it was only by so fighting that Europe could be saved from the domination of an overbearing nation. . . . It ill becomes German statesmen, looking back on the past, either to deride England's efforts for the balance of power or the gratitude which Germany owes to England for the efforts which she has made in that connection. I go further. I say that until German militarism is a thing of the past; until that ideal is reached for which we all long, in which there shall be an international court armed with executive powers, so that the weak may be as safe as the strong; till that time comes it will never be possible to ignore the principle of action which underlies the struggle for the balance of power in which our forefathers engaged. If Count Hertling really wants to render the balance of power an antiquated ideal of international statesmen, he must induce his countrymen to give up that policy of ambitious domination which overshadows the world at this moment, which is the real enemy, and without which alone, if it were destroyed, peace would come upon us now and forever." Mr. Balfour's acute intellect has led him to the conclusion that the system of the balance of power as defined by so eminent a jurist as Gentz himself is wonderfully similar in its main features, if it were only rendered effective by a sanction capable 66 of stern enforcement, to the idea of a league of nations, which has served as an inspiration to the lovers of peace, founded on national liberty and maintained by the moral and physical forces of civilization. Chevalier Von Gentz, who in 1814 was appointed First Secretary to the Congress of Vienna, of whose secret treaties he has left a curious account, and who in fact drafted the treaties finally signed by all the powers, published in 1806 his Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe, in which he by anticipation expresses the views of Mr. Balfour on the balance of power evolved from a system of international morality unenforceable by sanction and maintained, if at all, by war to a system of international positive law capable of enforcement by the decrees of "an international court armed with executive powers, so that the weak may be as safe as the strong." Gentz' definition of the term "balance of power" illustrates the position enunciated of substantial agreement in an ideal between him and Mr. Balfour despite the generations which intervened between their lives. Gentz defines the balance of power to be a constitution subsisting between neighboring states more or less connected with one another by virtue of which no one among them can endanger the independence or essential rights of another without meeting with effectual resistance on some side and consequently exposing himself to danger." He suggested the maintenance of four conditions as the necessary basis of such an equilibrium which virtually demand the existence of an effective sanction for the decrees of international morality-in other words, the change of international morality into international positive law: (1) That no state must ever become so powerful as to coerce all the rest; (2) that every state which infringes the conditions is liable to be coerced by others; (3) that the fear of coercion should keep all within the bounds of moderation; and (4) that a state having attained a degree of power to defy the union should be treated as a common enemy. CORPORATION AS "PERSON."-There appears to be no decision as to whether a corporation, such as a banking company, can be appointed as the new trustee of a deed or will under section 10 of the Trustee Act 1893. That section enables certain persons to appoint "another person or persons to be a trustee, or trustees, in the place of the trustee dead, etc." Is a corporation a person within the meaning of that section? It was decided by Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady (as he then was) in Re Thompson's Settlement Trusts; Thompson v. Alexander (91 L. T. Rep. 835; (1905) 1 Ch. 229) that, since the Bodies Corporate (joint tenancy) Act 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 20) had enabled corporate bodies to hold property in joint tenancy with individuals, under a power in a marriage settlement to appoint a new trustee or new trustees "in the place of the trustee or trustees so dying, &c.," a corporation could be appointed a new trustee, to act jointly with the surviving trustee of the settlement. It will be observed, however, that in that case the power was not to appoint a person or persons as new trustees but to appoint a new trustee or new trustees. But in the Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 19, it is provided as follows: "In every act passed after the commencement of this Act the expression 'person' shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include any body of persons corporate or unincorporate." The Conveyancing Act 1881, which embodied in section 31 a power to appoint new trustees similar for this purpose to section 10 of the trustee Act 1893, contained a provision that "person" includes a corporation," but the trustee Act 1893 does not contain a similar clause. It is conceived, however, that that does not amount to a contrary intention within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1889, and that a corporation can be appointed as new trustee under section 10 of the Trustee Act 1893. There is no doubt that, even apart from that Act, the word 'person' in a statute includes an artificial, as well as a natural, person. It must depend, however, in part on the nature of the statute. As pointed out by Lord Coleridge in Guardians of St. Leonards, Shoreditch v. Franklin (39 L. T. Rep. 122; 3 C. P. Div. 373), that an Act of Parliament must be construed secundum subjectam materiem. That was a case where a corporation sued for penalties as a common informer, under 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. lxxvi.; and it was held that it could not do so as it was not a "person" within the meaning of the statute. In Re Jeffock's Trusts, (51 L. J. 507, Ch.) Mr. Justice Chitty (as he then was) decided that a limited company-that is to say, a corporation—was a person within the meaning of a power to trustees to grant leases "to any person or persons"; but in Harrison, Anslie and Co. v. Barrow-in-Furness Corporation (63 L. T. Rep. 834) Mr. Justice Romer (as he then was) decided that a corporation was not a person of "responsibility and respectability" within the meaning of a covenant by the lessees in a lease not to assign or underlet without the consent of the lessor, which consent was not to be unreasonably refused or refused to a person of “responsibility or respectability." In Wilmot v. London Road Car Company Limited (103 L. T. Rep. 447; (1910) 2 Ch. 525), however, where a lessee covenanted to use the demised premises for the business of a jobmaster and livery-stable keeper, and not to assign or underlet or part with the possession of the premises without the written consent of the lessor, which was not to be withheld in respect of "a respectable and responsible person," it was held by the Court of Appeal that the word "person" in the covenant included a corporation, such as a limited company, and that a limited company was capable of being "a respectable and responsible person" within the meaning of the covenant. As pointed out by Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton (as he then was) in the course of his judgment, more and more of the business of the country is transacted by corporations, and less and less by private individuals, and this naturally brings with it an increased tendency to use the word "person" as including all legal persons who can perform the duties of persons with regard to property; and in any legal document dealing with the holding of property and the performance of the obligations connected with it, he should himself be inclined to hold that "person" was used in its extended sense, unless there was something in the context or in the object of the provision which drove him to a different conclusion. "The interests of the people as well as those of the defendant require that the trial of an accusation should be had according to law. The safety and security of every citizen requires that if one accused cannot be fairly and lawfully convicted, he should not be convicted at all."-Per Collin, J., in People v. Manganaro, 218 N. Y. 9. DELAWARE CHARTERS IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS TO THE DELAWARE LAW (March 20, 1917). LAW AND FORM 8 FREE. Corporation Company of Delaware 604 EQUITABLE BUILDING, WILMINGTON, DEL. Obiter Dicta A DEFEATED LITIGANT.-Loud v. Solomon, 188 Mich. 7. LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD.-Wolfe v. Childs, 42 Colo. 121. OLFACTORY ACTIONS.-Violet v. Rose, 39 Neb. 660; Drain v. Violett, 65 Ky. 155. BAD WEATHER.-Gardner v. Winter, 117 Ky. 382; Blizzard v. Growers' Canning Co., 152 Iowa 257. AND THE CAUSE.-Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. St. 88. THE RACE IS NOT ALWAYS TO THE SWIFT.-In Legg v. Stillman, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 418, Stillman won. NOT SO BASHFUL.-In Coy v. State, 75 Tex. Crim. 85, the defendant was convicted of having two wives at one time. WHERE DID HE GO FROM HERE?-"The deceased was employed as a fireman."-Per Clement, J., in McCormick v. A. T. Kelliher Lumber Co., 18 British Columbia 61. DISTURBED BLISS.-State v. Eden, 92 Wash. 1, was a prosecution against the defendant for having in his possession "for his own personal use" forty-six pints of beer and forty-nine and one-half quarts of other liquors. SUPERVACANEOUSLY SPEAKING.-"That which is invalid is void, and that which is void is no thing; it is the same as though it had never had any form."-Per Woodward, J., in Matter of Bewsher, 178 N. Y. App. Div. 384. AMEN! "As we pray the Lord to lead us not into temptation, so may we pray that our judges be not led into temptation by any pledge or any influence or by the thought of re-election." -Per Robinson, J., dissenting, in State v. Webb, 36 N. Dak. 247. ST. LUKE XVIII, 13-"There may be those who love consistency of utterance and of precedent more than they do the administration of justice, but in our opinion the courts were created solely for the purpose of administering justice."-See Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 398. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.-Sir Charles Russell was once sitting in a court when another barrister, leaning across the benches during the hearing of a trial for bigamy, whispered: "Russell, what's the extreme penalty for bigamy?" "Two mothers-in-law," replied Russell, without hesitation. TOUGH LUCK!-In Alabama Great Southern Ry. v. Foley (Ala.) 70 So. 726, an action by a married woman to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff's husband, in describing the extent of his wife's injuries, said: "The only thing I know is that she is no earthly account to me like she used to be. She can't make a fire, bring in a back log; she can't even wash and cook, and I have to help do that, and I never did have to help do that before." Too GOOD TO BE TRUE.-A correspondent sends us the following: An Oklahoma attorney opened an argument fortified behind a table filled with legal lore. His first words were a quotation from the Bible. The court interrupted with a question as to whether the citation to the authority quoted had been stated: "No, your honor," replied the attorney, "I assumed that the court was familiar with the Scriptures. You will note that I indulged no such presumption with regard to the law." WERE DOING THEIR BEST.-To a couple of Irishmen that were haled before him a police magistrate in Chicago put this question: "Isn't it possible to settle this case out of court?" "Excuse me, Your Honor," said Casey, "but that is exactly what we were trying to do when the police interfered." ONE DEFENSE LEFT.-All common-law defenses having been swept away by the average workmen's compensation act, we are glad to note that the harassed employer may still find refuge in the divine law. Said Woodworth, J., in Borgsted v. Shults Bread Co., 167 N. Y. App. Div. 647: "The purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Law was not to abrogate the divine law that the 'sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons, even to the third and fourth generation,' but to impose upon certain designated industries, or the product of such industries, the burdens of the accidents arising out of such employments." WHAT ARE THEY?-"In Hampton v. State, 88 Miss. 257, 40 So. 545, 117 Am. St. Rep. 740, this court said: 'Mulattoes, negroes, Malays, whites, millionaires, paupers, princes, and kings, in the courts of Mississippi, are on precisely the same exactly equal footing.' I wish the court had added, 'railroads, traction companies, and junk dealers.'"-Per Etheridge, J., in Abasi Bros. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 115 Miss. 826.—Which is equivalent to saying that railroad and traction companies and junk dealers do not fall within any of the classes of litigants previously enumerated. Apparently the population of Mississippi is somewhat mixed. A MOCK TRIAL.-At a recent convention of the judges of the Federal courts, it was suggested that a mock trial be held for the instruction of the jurists in the trial of criminal cases. The suggestion was eagerly adopted and the proceedings began. Judge Sessions of Michigan was unanimously chosen to preside as he had had the most experience. On either side of him sat Judges Learned Hand and Augustus Hand of New York. Judge Call of Florida acted as crier and opened court. The defendant, arranged on a charge of wife-beating, was impersonated by Judge Meek of Texas. The prosecuting attorney was Judge Dodge of Massachusetts, and the defendant having no counsel Judge Newman of Georgia was assigned to represent him. By the time the participants had all been selected, the hour was late and it was found necessary to postpone the trial. The crier having disappeared, Judge Morrow of California announced an adjournment until the next day, and an invitation to dinner was extended to those present by Judge Grubb of Alabama. In eager anticipation of the next day's proceedings, the office boy stirred and-awoke. THE WELSH LANGUAGE IN COURT.-The question was once raised in the British Parliament whether there was any need of having in the Wales county court judges who could speak the Welsh language. The English members contended that there was not the slightest necessity for it; that an English-speaking judge would, in every case, do exactly as well as a native. Then Mr. Mabon, a Welsh member, sprang to his feet. "Very well," said he, "let us consider the matter. Here we are in the county court house at Ynysymaengwyn. I am the plaintiff. The attorney-general is the county court judge. He, in the course of the case, asks me if I am prepared to swear that the boots delivered to the defendant, for the price of which I sue, were rights and lefts, or otherwise as the defendant alleges. "That is a delicate question which I, with my partial knowledge of English, do not trust myself to answer except in my native tongue. Therefore I say: "Cywmer daubwoch, ar gwastad clawdd lluest twich; pen-dré pistyll bwich dwy hafod-tai lech wedd Yspytty?" "Now," he thundered, while the House held its breath, and a cloud of embarrassment stole over the face of the attorneygeneral, "what does the honorable and learned gentleman say to that?" The honorable and learned gentleman had no further objection to make. "Dangerous precedents occur in dangerous times." Per Chief Judge Cranch in U. S. v. Bollman (1807) 1 Cranch (C. C.) 373, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,622 (at p. 1192). "Courts are not empowered to declare grounds of public policy, nor to allow considerations thereof to be grounds of judicial decision. It is the province of the statesman to discuss and of the legislature to determine what is best for the public good and to provide for it by proper enactment. It is not within judicial cognizance to speculate what is best or for the advantage of the community. Judicial power has not extended to the right to establish as law everything which it considers for the public good and to prohibit everything which it believes otherwise."-Per McAvoy, J., in Fritz Schulz, Jr. Co. v. Raimes, 164 N. Y. Supp. 461. Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and county aforesaid, personally appeared M. B. Wailes, who, having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Treasurer of the Edward Thompson Co., the publishers of LAW NOTES, and that the following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management, etc., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24, 1912, embodied in section 443, Postal Laws and Regulations, to wit: 1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor. and business managers are: 4. That the two paragraphs, next above, giving the names of the owners, stockholders, and security holders, if any, contain not only the list of stockholders and security holders as they appear upon the books of the company but also, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting, is given; also that the said two paragraphs contain statements embracing affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner; and this affiant has no reason to believe that any other person, association, or corporation has any interest direct or indirect in the said stock, bonds, or other securities than as so stated by him. M. B. Wailes, Treas. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of Mar., 1918. Geo. Babcock, Notary Public [SEAL]. (My commission expires March 30th, 1919.) PATENTS Business from non-resident attorneys especially solicited. Highest references; best services. Counsel having clients who wish to patent inventions are invited to write for full particulars and information. WATSON E. COLEMAN, PATENT LAWYER 624 F Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. TH HE federal statute excluding from interstate commerce articles produced by child labor has been invalidated by the federal Supreme Court, four justices dissenting. Of course the effect of the decision is a matter of general regret; doubtless it was so to the judges whose interpretation of the constitution compelled them to concur in it. The question was a close one, the weight of legal opinion as reflected in the professional magazines being against the validity of the act. For that reason if for no other the criticism of the court which the decision has provoked is wholly out of place. Moreover the decision affords a poor text on which to found an argument in favor of taking from the courts the power to nullify legislation. The opinion has been expressed more than once in LAW NOTES that the constitutional provisions which operate as limitations on the legislative power might well be abrogated. But those provisions which delimit the relative functions of the national and the state governments are in their nature indispensable and their interpretation and enforcement cannot well be lodged elsewhere than in the courts. The protection of individual liberty may perhaps be left without danger to the legislative representatives of the people but the structure of the government must be fixed by the constitution or no stable government can exist. If the law in question was designed to remedy a real evil constitutional means will be found to accomplish the result, and it is probable that no better or quicker means of producing the necessary public sentiment could have been found than is afforded by this decision, A Ghost of the Past. THE HE decision in the child labor law case indicates but one of the many inconvenient limitations which remain as a legacy of the jealousy which existed among the states at the time when the constitution was adopted. That feeling has largely passed; the fears then entertained have been found to be largely illusory; but the provisions then considered necessary to secure the approval of the constitution remain to plague future generations. The United States is more than a federation of states. It has become a nation, bound to play its part as such in the family of nations. Child labor is a national and not a local question; if we never knew it before we know it now when we are mobilizing the man power of the nation for national defense. But it is not every national question which has been committed to Congress. Unless a measure can be justified as an exercise of one of the specifically granted powers it is not within the congressional domain no matter how general may be its necessity. Such a situation is wholly illogical, and in crucial times fruitful of peril. Every generation sees civilization growing more complex, and the interests of the people of different localities more interdependent. Yet a state may make of itself a moral or industrial plague spot, infecting the entire national life, and as long as it preserves the semblance of "a republican form of government" the nation has no power to interfere. Sooner or later this condition must be remedied, and perhaps only the shock of seeing nullified laws which in spirit if not in letter are demanded alike by national interest and common humanity will bring about that result. After Armageddon. rise as To the IT T is beginning to be recognized that radical changes in our domestic life will follow the war; that not only will governmental and business methods retain something of the best of their war time characteristics but that character itself will be altered in the crucible. Speculation is rife as to the changes that will occur in business. and in religion, and it is not amiss to speculate likewise on possible changes in law and government. thousands, perhaps millions, of men who will come back from the front, the nation will mean more than it has meant to Americans in the past; the national spirit will never before over narrow and sectional lines. The looseness and lack of national cohesion in our life will largely disappear. But those men who have done to the uttermost the duty of a citizen to the nation will be the most prompt to insist that the nation shall do its part by its citizens. If there is injustice and inequality, if the few prosper while the many suffer, they will be entitled to know the reason why. The men who have dealt with the raw realities of life will have small patience with forms that produce injustice and laws that make for iniquity. There will be a shaking of dry bones in court room and legislative hall and many a devotee of moss grown tradition will be sure the country is going to the dogs. The lawyer who has led a company across a shell swept field will never fall into the worship of dust covered precedents. The college bred man who has fought and suffered beside a son of the slums till their common humanity was revealed will never vote for laws. conceived in class conscious pride. Our laws and our institutions are going to become more real, more just and more human when the boys come home. Scheduled for the Rubbish Heap. O NE of the things which is likely to receive short shrift at the hands of the returning soldiers is the spirit of puritanism now so prevalent in our land. The anticigarette agitation for instance will not make much of an impression on them. Just because they will have seen the value of real morality and real religion they will have none of the canting substitutes. "Private Peat" says: "Out of the war will come a new religion. It won't be a sin any more to sing rag time on Sunday." The recent case of Rosenbaum v. State (Ark.), 199 S. W. 388, affords a fair example of the spirit referred to. The defendant was convicted of operating a motion picture show on Sunday at Argenta, Ark. It appeared that this was in the vicinity of Camp Pike and Ft. Roots, where many thousand soldiers were stationed for training. There was no question but that the show was of a clean and wholesome character. The mayor of Argenta, the president of the chamber of commerce at Little Rock, and officers of high rank from Camp Pike testified that they believed that under the existing conditions Sunday sports and picture shows were highly beneficial to the physical and moral life of the soldiers, Sunday being the one day allowed them for recreation. The court held that this testimony was inadmissible and affirmed a conviction. Of course no criticism can attach to the court which doubtless declared the law correctly and could have done nothing else, though it might have spared quoting in eulogy of the "Sabbath" a man or two whose private lives are reputed to have contained incidents more blameworthy than attendance on Sunday movies. But as for the people who instigated the prosecution, it is a pity that they cannot be taken over to look at the results of the Hun invasion and given a few days of actual warfare, just to get their sense of proportion straight. Things look different from the front row of trenches than from the front row of pews. A Patriotic Utterance. WE E take pleasure in extracting from a press report and giving greater permanence to a judicial utterance which has not found its way into the official reports, and which expresses a doctrine which cannot be emphasized too frequently and has rarely if ever been better stated. In imposing a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment for a violation of the espionage law, United States District Judge Wade of the Southern District of Iowa is reported to have said: "In this hour of the nation's agony it is a source of pride and gratification to every true American to see how thoroughly united are men of all races and class and creeds in a determined effort to crush the brutal power of Germany. Fathers and mothers are sending forth their boys to yield their lives, if necessary, in the cause of human liberty. Men and women are giving their hard earnings to support these boys, and to make them effective in this war. Little children are giving their pennies. Men and women are giving of their time and their labor. The rich are giving, the poor are giving; and isn't it too bad that there must be a few-a very few, thank Godwho are rebels against all authority, who are at heart traitors to their country, and who in every effort are seeking to neu tralize the sacrifices of their loyal neighbors. We might as well come to a common understanding in this matter. The only way that a republic can live is through a spirit of willing submission to duly constituted authority. In a republic the majority must rule; the minority must yield. A nation divided against itself cannot stand; it must fall. And if this nation does not stand, if this nation falls, in the ruins will lie the brightest hopes and noblest aspirations and fondest dreams that ever brought joy to the heart of man. The spirit of this nation is kindness, toleration and generosity. The policy of the government up to the present time has been one of charity toward those who err. But the time has come when the power of the nation must be asserted. This nation is willing to fight the assassin of the air, the pirate of the sea and the master of the most brutal cruelty and treachery that the world ever knew— she is willing to fight all these, but she will not consent to be stabbed in the back, and traitors may as well sheathe their knives or submit to extermination. The fathers and mothers of this land will watch with pride the boys marching away to the conflict, but they will not submit to having them shot in the back by cowardice or disloyalty, no matter what name it may assume. There is no disposition to hamper the views of the pen of any man or woman who utters helpful criticism, who condemns error or mistake, or men, provided the criticism is intended to aid the government; but the American people are not going to permit a few self-exalted egotists to poison the public mind or to weaken the spirit of those who are heavy laden. Men cannot conceal under patriotic phrases a hidden desire to aid the enemy nor can they dishearten the fighting forces of the Union with falsehood and calumny." The Psychology of the Crusade. NE of the most striking phenomena of American political life is the comparative ease with which a small body of earnest persons can by continual agitation secure the enactment of a law affecting the general welfare of the community and which is so far from representing the popular will that it either falls into oblivion or is kept alive by the activities of a few busybodies. Who imagines, for example, that the prohibition of Sunday baseball and motion pictures represents the sentiment of the cosmopolitan city of New York? To some extent the situation is explicable by the legislative practice of "log rolling" whereby a few legislators committed exclusively to a single measure may eventually gain a majority by trading their support to the adherents of other proposed legislation. But much more potent is the fact that the zealous few can always in the long run gain an ascendancy over the indifferent many. In any general assemblage the indifferent vote ordinarily goes to the affirmative. It would have gone to the affirmative had the question been stated conversely. Just for that reason, a small but zealous minority will always prevail if mere inertia is opposed to their efforts. If in some respects we have a democracy which is nominal only; if it is minorities and not majorities which really rule, the fault lies not in the system but in the citizenry. Legislation will never represent the popular will until we are as active and as earnest in opposing proposed measures in which we do not believe as we are in advocating those in which we are interested. There was a period in American history when corrupt politicians looked to the shortness of the popular memory to leave them in their official stations. To-day legislators are terrorized into voting against their convictions by the knowledge that organized pseudo reformers will remember that vote until the next election, while the great body of the people will not. The moral is trite, but none the less vital, that there is no form of government under which eternal vigilance is not the price of liberty. |