Слике страница
PDF
ePub

The following Attorneys reside at State Capitals, or in principal cities, pay special attention to corporation law, the formation or dissolution of corporations, the filing of "foreign" certificates. They will act as agents or attorneys, maintaining a domicilatory office when necessary.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

FLORIDA, Ocala..

HONOLULU, Hawaii.

IDAHO, Boise..

.Stevens, McCorvey, McLeod, Goode & Turner

Carmichael & Hendricks

Chas. F. Hanlon, 501 Phelan Bldg.

.Ewing & Arnold, 1st Natl. Bank Bldg.
Stoner & Burke, 125 Pearl St.
..Marvel, Marvel, Layton & Hughes

..D. Niel Ferguson

.Charles E. Winstead
.Holden & Coffin

.Ernest Drennen, 77 W. Washington St.
.J. Burdette Little, Fidelity Trust Bldg.
Wilson & Shaw, Equitable Bldg.

Vermilion, Evans, Carey & Lilleston, First Natl. Bank Bldg.

IDAHO, Pocatello

[blocks in formation]

MASSACHUSETTS, Boston .....

[blocks in formation]

MONTANA, Miles City

H. Payne Breazeale

Trabue, Doolan, Helm & Helm .McLean, Fogg & Southard Albert S. J. Owens, Fidelity Bldg. .Arthur G. Ferdinand, 40 Court St.

......Charles E. George, 711 Hammond Bldg. .Anthony M. Bayer, N. Y. Life Bldg.

Floyd & Easterling

Claud D. Hall, Central Nat'l. Bank Bldg.

Loud & Leavitt

NEBRASKA, Omaha ....Montgomery, Hall, Young & Johnson, Omaha Natl. Bank Bldg.

[blocks in formation]

Connie C. Renfro .......Booth, Lee, Badger & Rich

.Martin & Seibert. People's Trust Bldg.

WISCONSIN, Milwaukee-Bottum, Hudnall, Lecher, McNamara & Michael, Trust Co. Bldg

TEXAS, Dallas

..............

UTAH, Salt Lake City

WASHINGTON, Seattle

.......

[blocks in formation]

...Cary Ellis Stern & Chumbley

CANADA

.Nathan Phillips, 171 Yonge St.

[blocks in formation]

The Lawyer and Banker has attained its majority. With the current number it has rounded out twenty years of life. It has grown from small beginnings and a small subscription list to its present postion as the unquestioned voice and authority of a large part of the legal profession and of the abstracting and title professions.

There is no occasion for us to look backward. The record speaks for itself. There has been a steady growth with increasing power and influence. In looking forward, we only "highly resolve" that the work which was begun in 1908 will be carried on with increasing vigor and effectiveness. It is our earnest wish that the ideals of an equal and exact justice shall be brought nearer and nearer to the world of men.

The United States is at the present time in the throes of a Caesarean operation for which the Volstead Act of some ten years since seems to be wielding the knife. Whether or not the patient will entirely recover is a question for the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial branches of this government to balance. The supreme aim of American citizenship lies in the essential necessity of a perfect law and union.

If the United States has a giant's strength, it owes it in no small measure to the skillful guidance of the lawyers who bring to the service knowledge of great industrial, financial and commercial undertakings, as well as to municipal county and state administrations, trained legal minds, caution, wisdom, equity and humanity, these are the stoutest bulwarks of civilization.

It goes without saying that the rule of law involves two important things. One is the absence of arbitrary power on the part of the government. The other is equality before the law. Every man and every woman, whoever he or she may be, whether an official or not, is subject to the ordinary law of the land, administered by ordinary tribunals.

The word "democracy", of which so much is heard, would seem to be a patent medicine or a fancy relation of some idealism belonging to wonderland. It is not intended, of course, to mean anything of the kind. It is rather a particular form of Government, under which the Sovereign political power in a State or country is distributing among all the citizens of that State or country. We accept the discussions of Aristotle, Plato, Herodutus, Thucydides and Athenagoras; this last saying, a few centuries before Christ, that democracy is the fairest name of all because every citizen has a share in the Government, and that consequently each and every citizen is free. The freedom shall consist in responsibility and the responsibility which involves freedom is unquestionable the very pith and marrow of the democratic condition.

With these thoughts in mind, we enter upon a new, and, we trust, a long term of life, giving careful consideration to improvements in the law which we find best, and the enforcement of all laws which stand for the general betterment of the individual and of the State.

May the coming year be fraught with better business, higher ideals and greater successes than those hereto enjoyed.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

It has been frequently said that in some of the States of the United States the criminal law is as technical today as was the law in England in the eighteenth century, but we believe that it would be difficult to find an English case which could equal People v. Fathers, 153 N. E. 704, Ill. 1926 (noted in the Law Quarterly Review, Vol XLIII, p. 357, July 7, 1927. The Illinois statute under which the prisoner F. was indicted provided that every male of the age of 17 years and upwards who should have carnal knowledge of any female not his wife under the age of 16 should be guilty of rape. F. was convicted, but on appeal the judgment was reversed on the ground that the indictment did not allege that the prosecutrix E. S. was not the wife of the accused.

ENGLISH JUDICIAL DISCRETION.

The difference between law in action and law in the books is well illustrated by Grayson v. Grayson, 43 T. L. R. 225. Both the husband and the wife had committed adultery, but Mr. Justice Hill was asked to exercise his discretion in favour of the wife. His Lordship granted a decree nisi on the ground

that "One important element now considered was the future of the people, and whether they were likely to marry again or not. The husband was living with a woman, and counsel had said that those two were anxious to marry, and that the husband would never return to his wife, who would not take him back." Although, as far as the actual words are concerned, the law of divorce in this respect is the same today as it was twenty years ago it is clear that at the beginning of the century such a result would have been impossible. But, as his Lordship pointed out, the views of the Court as to the circumstances in which its discretion can be exercised have altered enormously in the last few years. Thanks to this wise development in judicial discretion some of the unfortunate results which might result from a strict administration of the present unsatisfactory law of divorce are avoided.

Rights of Religion and the Bible in Public

and Private Schools

By Raymond M. Hudson of the Washington, D. C., Bar.
(Continued from last number.)

SUCH READING OR STUDY OF THE BIBLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, RATIFIED JULY 28, 1868.

Our position as a people and nation on the separation of religion and politics, or church and state, was a matter of history, and well defined, long before 1866; the Bible had been taught and read, and religious instructions had, in the public and private institutions of learning in many states; many of the statutes mentioned above providing for religious activities had then been enacted by Congress; State legislatures had passed many similar laws and authorized similar activities, so that it can hardly be contended seriously that our people in adopting the 14th Amendment intended, or even thought of, changing or limiting the rights and powers of the people in matters of religion and good morals. Everyone knows that the three amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th, commonly called the "Civil War Amendments," were principally adopted for protection of the rights of the Negroes.

(See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 676.) The 14th Amendment is as follows:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person

« ПретходнаНастави »