bers were from without the legislature, was created on the subject of employers' liability.

Somewhat similar to this is the work of the commissioners on uniform state laws. Their primary object is to secure united action among the various states on subjects upon which uniformity seems necessary. They necessarily afford, however, the opportunity for the special study of the subject which is the object of the ordinary legislative commission.

In many cases, however, the legislatures are apt to look upon the creation of special commissions as an abdication of their own powers, and are turning rather to special committees which are in session during the interval between the legislatures. During 1910 various committees of this kind were holding hearings preparatory to reporting at the next session of the legislatures. This was most notable in Wisconsin, where special committees on employers' liability, banking, good roads, income tax, water powers, and education were created at the session of 1909, for the purpose of holding hearings on the subjects and reporting at a contemplated special session to be held during 1910. No such session was called, however, one of the principal reasons being that the work of the committees was found to be very heavy, and they were unable to report in time to make a special session possible.

Legislative Libraries.-Many of the states are also endeavoring to assist the work of the legislatures by the creation of legislative libraries, whose object is to obtain information on subjects liable to come before the legislature. The fundamental idea of these libraries is the furnishing of information and not to work for or against any particular ideas. No extension of this work was found during 1910.

On the whole the work of the legis latures of 1910 is not notable. They have continued the regular work of law making, following along the same lines as the legislatures of the last eight or ten years. The length of the sessions shows no sign of returning to its former standard. The fact that

the present age demands a governmental interference in many fields is most strikingly seen in the session laws of the various states. In Maryland the legislature thought it necessary to authorize the State Board of Education to "add the international language known as Esperanto to the branches required to be taught in the normal schools and high schools." Many acts were passed by this legislature on public health.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

No attempt will be made to digest all of the cases decided during the year which involved questions of constitutional law, for they number upward of 700. It is believed, however, that the following outline embraces the most important and instructive decisions of the Federal and State courts passing upon the constitutionality of statutes.

General Principles.-A court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless this is necessary to the determination of an actual and concrete controversy regarding it. The State vs. Dolley, 82 Kan. 533 (May 7, 1910); Smith vs. Stephens, 91 N. E. 167 (Ind. Sup. Ct., March 8, 1910). The presumption is in favor of constitutionality: Michigan Central Ry. vs. Michigan Railroad Commissioner (Mich. Sup. Ct., March 19, 1910), 125 N. W. 549; State vs. Byers (Ark. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 1910), 126 S. W. 94.

If a statute is susceptible of two interpretations, preference will be given to the one which will render it constitutional. Georgia Fire Ins. Co. vs. City of Cedartown (Ga. Sup. Ct., Feb. 21, 1910), 67 S. E. 410; State vs. District Court (Sup. Ct. Mont., June 7, 1910), 109 Pac. 438.

Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes unless they are assailed in a properly instituted litigation by one who claims that his personal or property rights are invaded by it. Gordon vs. Corning (Ind. Sup. Ct., June 9, 1910), 92 N. E. 59; House vs. Mayes (Mo. Sup. Ct., April 26, 1910), 127 S. W. 305; State vs. Rose, 40 Mont. 66, 105 Pac. 82 (Nov. 29, 1909); Coal & Coke Ry. vs. Conley (W. Va. Sup. Ct., March 8, 1910), 67 S. E. 613;

ing to transfer legislative functions to the judiciary. The prevailing and dissenting opinions are worthy of careful study. They contain an able discussion of the principles involved, as well as an abundance of illustrations and a full array of authorities bearing upon this point.

In United States vs. Louisville & N. Ry., 176 Fed. 942 (March 15, 1910), act of Congress of March 3, 1905, ch. 1496, Sec. 4, was held unconstitutional in attempting to empower the executive department to declare what facts constitute a crime. A crime, said the court, "must be created by the act of Congress alone, for the public are not required to look beyond the act, and their endeavor to ascertain what is criminal, and the discretion of fixing what facts import criminality is exclusively that of the lawmakers as distinguished from the executive."

The Supreme Court of South Carolina declared that a statute, which undertook to confer on the father arbitrary power to grant the custody of his children to any person he might select, would be unconstitutional, because an attempt by the legislature to take from the judiciary the right of determining all questions involving the custody of minors and their illegal restraint. Ex parte Tillman, 84 S. C. 552; 66 S. E. 1049 (Feb.

15, 1910).

Delegation of Powers.-The constitutionality of statutes is often successfully assailed because of their attempt to delegate either executive, judicial, or legislative powers to persons outside of these departments. Examples are found in the cases of Columbia Trust Co. vs. Lincoln Institute, 129 S. W. 113 (Kentucky Court of Appeals, June 17, 1910), and of Booth vs. McGuinness, 75 At. 455 (N. J. Court of Errors and Appeals, Feb. 4, 1910). The assault failed in the following cases, the courts holding that the several statutes did not delegate governmental powers in violation of the constitution: Burrell vs. Gill, 108 Pac. 1080 (Washington Sup. Court, May 26, 1910), where the act created a municipal plans commission, which was an advisory board only; Billings Sugar Company vs. Fish, 106 Pac.

565 (Supreme Court of Mont., Jan. 7, 1910), where the act provided for a drain commissioner to carry into effect a drainage law; Michigan Central Ry. vs. Michigan Railroad Commission, 125 N. W. 549 (Mich. Sup. Ct., March 19, 1910), upholding a railroad commission act on the ground that the duties of the commissioners were not legislative or executive but ministerial. "The authority conferred on them relates merely to the administration in practice of the general rules laid down by the common law and by the legislature"; State vs. Frear, 125 N. W. 961 (Wis. Sup. Ct., April 5, 1910), holding that the primary election law of that State did not attempt to devolve legislative power upon the electorate, but provided only that the question whether the law should become operative was to be submitted to a vote of the people.

Invading Personal Rights.-While these are not susceptible of exact definition, the Supreme Court of South Carolina asserts that "they clearly embrace family rights, that is, the right of parents to the care and custody of their children, and the right of children to receive from their parents maintenance and care." It declared that if a statute attempted to give to the father the absolute right to dispose of the custody of his children by deed or will, it must be held unconstitutional. As the statute in question (Secs. 2689 and 2690, Civil Code), however, could be construed as conferring upon the father power only to relinquish his paternal right over his children, it should be thus construed and its constitutionality sustained. Accordingly, the mother's right to the custody of her children, and their right to be free from the illegal restraint upon their liberty attempted by the father in deeding them to others, were upheld. (Ex parte Tillman, 84 S. C. 552; 66 S. E. 1049.)

Religious Freedom.-This personal right is secured against legislative invasion by special constitutional clauses. In Illinois, Art. 2, Sec. 3, guarantees "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination." This guarantee, it has been held, was