should be just as careful of the locomotive automobiles in the streets as they are of the locomotives and cars on the steam railroad tracks, and by their actions help and assist the Massachusetts Safety First Council in the campaign to prevent injury to themselves and to others.

"From time to time the newspapers give publicity to certain 'Don'ts' issued by the police in connection with 'Safety First' propaganda. We do everything possible in Boston to assist in the prevention of automobile accidents and deaths by arresting and prosecuting in court all careless and reckless operators of automobiles (that is, all that we can manage to catch), but notwithstanding the increase in deaths and accidents continue."

The following is from Chief of Police M. F. Dempsey, Omaha, Neb.:

"I wish to state that the stringent enforcement of all traffic ordinances and laws by the police department, aided by 120 civilian volunteer traffic officers, has reduced deaths resulting from automo bile accidents from 38 in 1920 to 13 in 1922.

"Serious injuries resulting from the same cause are 10 per cent under the figures given in the same period of time. "The marking of dangerous corners is another way that we have found to be efficacious.

"There is an automobile for every 5.7 persons in Omaha and adjacent territory, 14 per cent more than in 1920. The handling of traffic is one of the gravest problems confronting the department today, but with the aid of the newspapers, lectures in schools, the eternal vigilance of our motorcycle officers and traffic officers, aided by the co-operation of our police judges in sentencing particularly vicious speeders to a jail sentence, much progress has been made in reducing the death list."

Charles H. Fitzmorris, Superintendent Chicago Police, makes some very interesting suggestions:

"During the year 1921 I inaugurated a School Boys' Safety Patrol System, whereby honor boys of the eighth grade are posted at certain thoroughfares near schools at the time children are going to and leaving school, whose duty it is to assist children in crossing these thoroughfares. Automobilists have been educated to obey the signals of members of the Boys' Safety Patrol. If an operator or driver of a vehicle fails to obey these signals, a memorandum is taken of the number of the license of the vehicle and transmitted to this office, together with a brief synopsis of the violation. The operator is then called to this office and warned. This usually has the effect of making them obey the regulations. If the violation is particularly flagrant, he is taken into court. The Boys' Safety Patrol has resulted in materially decreasing the number of accidents to school children in the vicinity of schools.

"A number of streets in this city have been designated as 'through streets.' These streets were selected because of the fact that a large number of accidents took place on them, and operators of vehicles on intersecting streets are required, by ordinance, to come to a stop. upon reaching any of these 'through streets,' the same as if the street were a boulevard. This also has resulted in materially reducing accidents."

The problem is chiefly one of education on the one hand and care and discrimination in licensing the operation of cars on the other. These must go together, for laxity in one means at least partial failure. in the other. Educate through the newspapers, through the schools and through every other source that can be used for the dissemination of warnings and instructions. Don't permit the intoxicated and reckless. to drive any machine at any time.

NOTES OF IMPORTANT DECISIONS

POLICE OFFICER RELIGHTING DEFECTIVE STREET LAMP IS INVITEE.A member of a police force while attempting to relight a defective street lamp was held to be an invitee where the light company knew that it was customary for members of the force to try to relight lamps that had gone out. So held by the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, in San Angelo Water, L. & P. Co. v. Anderson, 244 S. W. 571. On this question the Court said:

"The deceased was assistant city marshal of the city of San Angelo, and had been for some time. It was customary for members of the police force, when they found an arc lamp had gone out, to take hold of the wire or ring and shake it in order to relight the lamp. This custom was known to the appellant and was approved by it, and was beneficial to it.

on.

"The deceased, at about 9 o'clock at night, in company with the city marshal, was passing an arc lamp which had gone out. He went to the post where the cable was, with the express purpose of shaking the light back He grasped or touched the cable above the insulating ball, and was killed instantly. That the insulator at the end of the cable next to the lamp was out of order is evidenced by the fact that the cable was charged with an electric current sufficiently strong to kill the deceased as stated. It was known to the appellant that something was out of order in connection with this lamp. The manager had so notified the superintendent, who had ordered parts for repairing the same. After the death of deceased, it was found that the insulator next to the lamp was in fact out of order.

"The deceased occupied the position of an invitee, by reason of the fact that the act which he attempted to do was beneficial to the defendant, and it was known to the defendant that it had been the custom of deceased and other members of the police force to perform such act, and it had approved of such conduct."

MUSSELS IN STREAM ARE PROPERTY OF LANDOWNER.-The Supreme Court of the United States, in McKee v. Gratz, 43 Sup. Ct. 16, holds that mussels, having a practically fixed habitat and little ability to move, are in the possession of the owner of the land, so as to support an action for conversion against a trespasser; and this is even more true as to

the shells, when left piled on the bank awaiting transportation.

"The mussels were taken alive from the bottom of what seems to have been at times a flowing stream, at times a sucesssion of pools, were boiled on the banks and the shells subsequently removed. As to the plaintiff's title, it is not necessary to say that the mussels were part of the realty within the meaning of the Missouri Statutes or in such sense as to make the plaintiff an absolute owner. It is enough that there is a plain distinction between such creatures and game birds or freely moving fish, that may shift to another jurisdiction without regard to the will of landowner or State. Such birds and fishes are not even in the possession of man. 252 U. S. 434, 40 Sup. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641, 11 A. L. R. 984; 2 Kent, Comm. 349; Young v. Hichens, 6 Q. B. 606. On the other hand it seems not unreasonable to say that mussels having a practically fixed habitat and little ability to move are as truly in the possession of the owner of the land in which they are sunk as would be a prehistoric boat discovered under ground or unknown property at the bottom of a canal. Elwes v. Brigg Gas Co., 33 Ch. D. 562; Reg. v. Rowe, Bell, C. C. 93; Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. (Mass.), 255, 23 Am. Dec. 678. This is even more obvious as to the shells, when left piled upon the bank, as they were, to await transportation. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lewis, 162 U. S. 366, 378, 382, 16 Sup. Ct. 831, 40 L. Ed. 1002. Possession is enough to warrant recovery of substantial damages for conversion by a trespasser. We say nothing about the character of the stream as to navigability. The jury at least might find that there was nothing in that to prevent the application of what we have said. We are slow to believe that there were public rights extending to the removal of mussels against the landowner's will."

TEXAS MOTOR VEHICLE LAW HELD INVALID.-The 1921 session of the Texas Legislature passed a statute requiring license fees to be paid for, and the registration of motor trucks and tractors used by all private owners except farmers, and prohibiting commercial motor vehicles with a greater capacity than 8,000 pounds to be used by anyone except for agricultural purposes. The Court of Civil Appeals, in Lossing v. Hughes, 244 S. W. 556, holds this act to be discriminatory because not based upon a proper classification. In part the Court said:

"All persons subject to legislation limited as to the objects to which it is directed, or by the territory within which it is to operate, shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred, and in the liabilities imposed.' Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578.

"Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government.' Duncan v. Mo., 152 U. S. 377, 14 Sup. Ct. 570, 38 L. Ed. 485.

"See, also, Connoly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 Sup. Ct. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679.'

"Numerous other decisions announce the principles contained in the foregoing quoted extracts. Applying them to the provisions of the statute involved in this case such provisions, we think, are manifestly repugnant to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to Section 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Texas, which guarantee to citizens the equal protection of the laws and the due course of the law of the land."

"RESIDENCE PURPOSES" CONSTRUED.— Restriction, in deed of lot fronting on two streets, B. and M., and extending around two sides of lot on the corner, that any house erected on the B. street side should be used for residence purposes only, permits any use of that

part of the lot which would be consistent with its use for residential purposes only, as for decorative purposes; such as flower beds or a walkway, there being no building on it, but does not permit it being used in such a way that the manifest purpose would be to serve the business houses on the remainder of the lot and the corner lot, as by affording an intentional passageway or entrance thereby, by a concrete driveway or otherwise. Laughlin v. Wagner, Tenn., 244 S. W. 475.

We quote at length from the Court's opinion:

"The next question is whether the Belvedere side of the lot as hereinbefore determined can be used for proposed purposes as serving as an entrance for the drug store on the corner and the mercantile buildings which front on Madison avenue. The decree, being reviewed, enjoins the defendants from making use of the Belvedere side of the lot as a means of ingress to the drug store and other buildings on the other lots, and from making any use whatever other than a means of ingress and egress to buildings used purely for residential purposes.

"The argument in support of this decree is that this restrictive clause should be construed to relate to the use of the lot, and that it means that, whether a house be erected on the Belvedere side or not, the intention was to prevent its being used in connection with any other kind of house on any of the other lots, where such other purposes were permissible under the restrictive clause, and to say that it might be used in connection with the other buildings would be but evasion of the real intention of the parties.

"We think a fair interpretation of the restrictive clause in question would permit any use of the Belvedere side of the street which would be consistent with its use for residential purposes only. The clause does not require that a dwelling house shall be erected on the lot, and it is not intended to prohibit all uses thereof unless the house is built. It was evidently intended to prescribe the kind of building which should be erected, and the manner of and the particular use which should be made of the building itself. In other words, if the building had in all respects complied in form and location with that suitable as a residence, nevertheless the building could not be used for purposes not ordinarily and reasonably connected with such a use. On the other hand, whatever the character or form of the building, it would be permissible to use it for residential purposes, and if there be no building at all, it could be

used for purposes consistent with and incident to its use for residential purposes.

"From this interpretation it follows that the Belvedere side of this lot could not be made use of in such a way as that the manifest purpose would be to serve the business houses adjacent to it. For example, it could not be used as affording an intentional passageway or entrance into the business house. Any structure, whether strictly a house or not, such as a concrete driveway, which devotes the use of the property to the carrying on of a business, would be violative of this clause, but the use of the lot for decorative purposes, such as flower beds or as a walkway on the lot itself, would not violate the manifest intent and purpose of this clause.

"In other words, any use on this lot which might be reasonably incident to its use for residential purposes is permissible, but it is not permissible to put the lot into service as an incident to the business houses on the adjacent portion of the lot."

NO RECOVERY BY CHILD INJURED BY TRUCK LEFT STANDING IN STREET.Where an electric truck driver delivering bakery products stopped in front of a customer's house and left the car standing for a few moments with the power shut off and the brakes set while he carried the purchases to the house, and children who had never meddled with the car started it after being warned away, with result that one of them was injured, the driver was not negligent in failing to remove the switch plug, but the starting of the car by the children was the proximate cause of the accident. Jackson v. Mills-Fox Baking Co., Mich., 190 S. W. 740.

"In the present case we are of the opinion that no facts were shown which should have been submitted to the jury on the question of defendant's negligence. So far as Brewin's conduct appears by the proofs he did no different than the ordinarily careful and prudent man would have done under similar circumstances. The accident was caused by an independent intervening cause, namely, the starting of the car by the children. This was the proximate cause of the accident. The accident was an unfortunate one for the little fellow, but we do not see how it can be legally charged to the negligence of the defendant. We think the Court was in error in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, as requested."

On this question see 95 C. L J. 363-364.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR OBEDIENCE TO LAW

Robert W. Wheeler

Obedience to political laws is a vital issue before the people of America. The Herrin massacre is fresh in their minds. Lawlessness connected with the strikes and the Eighteenth Amendment brings the citizenship of our country to face squarely the question-What is the justification of the government in demanding respect for and obedience to its laws? The outcome will be a large factor in determining whether a democratic form of government can command respect for its statutes. The critics of democracy often point out that when the people can make their own laws there is a tendency on the part of each individual to feel that he may disregard those which he may find distasteful. Yet, due to the fact that the people themselves are severeign, obedience is more important in a democracy than in any other form of government.

OBEDIENCE NOT ARBITRARY REQUIREMENT The demand for obedience is not an arbitrary requirement, but is the only means by which the purpose of the state can be fulfilled. Unless the people obey the laws of the government it would be impossible to secure the ends for which the state is formed. It is the foundation of every theory of state excepting anarchy, which is rather the theory of absence of government. Without it the Constitution and laws become mere empty theories.

ORIGIN NOT MODERN

This question of obedience is by no means of recent origin. Many of the great political theorists have found obedience to be necessary to the establishment of a state; and that the advantages given in return were sufficient justification for demanding the fulfillment of this obligation. Thomas Hobbes, the great English philosopher of the seventeenth century, who favored the monarchie form of government,

emphasized the necessity for enforcing absolute obedience and also pointed out the fact that the government must give some advantages in return. These advantages, he thought, consisted in the protection afforded to the property and person of each individual; the protection of each from the "natural" avarice and greed of the others Maintenance of domestic peace is thus based primarily upon the idea of obedience and it is obviously impossible without it.

Other writers having a better opinion of human nature have placed the justification for obedience upon other grounds. Aristotle thought that man was by nature a social animal; that only by living in the society of others, could he realize the fullest development of his own nature. Government would thus be a natural growth whose laws must be recognized as sovereign by all. Obedience to law meant the rule of reason and was the means of the highest devlopment of society.

STATE PRODUCT OF HUMAN REASON John Locke, the philosopher of the English Revolution, argued that the state was the product of human reason organized for the purpose of preserving the "natural rights" of man, which consist of "his property that is, his life, liberty and estate."

Without a government capable of enforcing its laws, these rights are insecure; it is by obedience to the laws of the state organized to protect these rights that they may be maintained. In a democratic government unless the minority will consent to abide by the decision of the majority and obey the laws, no more protection is afforded than in the "state of nature" where no government exists. Obedience to the law is thus an obligation justified by the increasing security afforded to life, liberty and ownership of goods.

SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY Rousseau, the French philosopher of the Revolution, whose doctrines are largely embodied in the Declaration of Independence, also thought that men contracted to invest their sovereign power in the state

for the purpose of securing their natural rights. The will of the majority must be binding on all in order to secure the natural rights for whose perpetuation the state was instituted.

Montesquieu points out in his "Spirit of Laws" that political liberty "is the right. of doing whatever the laws permit; and if a citizen could do what they forbid, he would no longer have liberty, since the rest would have the same power. Thus, to him, paradoxical as it seems, obedience becomes the gateway to liberty.

The social compact theory of Rousseau was in vogue at the time of the formation of the Declaration of Independence and its influence upon it is clearly seen. It was held that governments were instituted to secure the inalienable rights of man-"life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"; and that it was the right of a people to alter or abolish a government which became destructive of these rights. Such was the philosophical justification for a politically illegal act. This theory is embodied in the consequent formation of the federal and state constitutions. They had found that dependence upon the voluntary co-operation of the states under the Articles of Confederation was useless. It was only by instituting a central government which could enforce its decrees, if necessary, upon the unwilling minority that an efficient government could be maintained. As Gibbon has pointed out in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":

"Civil governments, in their first institution, are voluntary associations for mutual defense. To obtain the desired end, it is absolutely necessary that each individual should conceive himself obliged to submit this private opinion and actions to the judgments of the greater number of his associates."

This principle is the basis of all effective organizations. We find it in voluntary organizations of today. When an individual joins an organization he promises explicitly or tacitly to subscribe to its rules. This