Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

purpose of successfully repelling the attacks which from time to time are being made upon the hotel interests by a class of citizens who may be justly styled fanatics or cranks. During the session of 1895 there were upward of thirty such bills introduced, the majority of which related to excise, and a large number to fire escapes, elevators, stairways and other features of hotel construction. In every instance these measures were either defeated or so modified in the committee room as to render them comparatively harmless.

corpus of the estate, under the law of discov-
ery. Is it possible that our courts will not at
this late day distinguish, as their predecessors
have done, between the limited rights in com-
mon law actions - on contract or tort - to an
examination before trial, and the essential right
in cases of trusts? The limited scope of legal
instruction since the Code is the plain cause of
this degeneration of a great equitable remedy.
By its attempted inclusion of all the rights of
discovery in general language, it has reduced
those discoveries that were absolute to the pro-
portions of those that are limited in their na-
ture. In fact, we have practically compelled
beneficiaries of trusts to take every risk on the
trial of their trustees; while the Chancery prac-
tice avoided every such risk by the beneficiary.
We certainly need legislative relief to avoid
this new legal obstacle, placed in the way of
every man who confides in executors or trus-called '

tees.

We publish in this number of the JOURNAL an article written by Lieut. J. S. Parke, U. S. army, on civil jurisdiction over military reservations, which we consider of particular importance and value, especially in view of several important decisions which have recently been made by the courts. The conflict of jurisdiction of military and civil tribunals is a subject which requires considerable care to properly distinguish and we feel that the military side of the question has been very ably

handled by Lieut. Parke.

Of the many laws which have been widely discussed and which was passed at the last session of the Legislature, few have acquired the notoriety of the so-called Malby law. Wm. J. Fanning, Esq., of New York city, counsel for the Hotel Keeper's Association, in an address to the members at the recent meeting,

said:

"It may be safely asserted that every statute enacted by the Legislature of this State modifying the harsh and unreasonable doctrines of the common law as applied to inn keepers, is the direct result of organization among the hotel keepers of the State. But it is not alone to secure remedial legislation that organization is necessary. It is equally important for the

"But, notwithstanding the vigilance of the legislative committee of this Association and that of New York city, there was one measure of extreme importance to hotel men which passed both houses and reached the Governor before they had any knowledge of its existence. I refer to the now famous Malby law, popularly Equal Rights Bill,' but which should have been entitled 'A Bill to Establish Unequal Rights.' That the object sought to be attained by this bill was party advantage is beyond doubt. That it will prove a boomerang to its promoters is, I think, equally clear.

"Previous legislation had conferred upon colored citizens every right and privilege enjoyed by the whites. The law made it a misdemeanor for a hotel proprietor to refuse accommodations to a colored man, and in addition gave the latter his right of action for damages. In other words, the law prohibited any discrimination against a colored man on account, or because of, his color. He had precisely the same rights as a white man-no more, no less.

"Under the Malby law, however, the colored man is accorded a right which is denied to the white citizen. For, while the latter, if wrongfully denied accommodation, is relegated to his action for damages, in which his actual damages must be established by legal proof to the satisfaction of a jury, the former is only called upon to prove that he was rejected on account of his color, whereupon the jury must award him $100, although he may not, in point of fact, have suffered any damage whatever.

"There is, to say the least, grave doubt as to the legislative power to enact a law so partial in its object and destructive in its effects to private interests. The business of hotel keep

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

ing is in every sense of the word a private en-
terprise, in which the proprietor invests his
capital and carries on his business without any
special grant or license from the State. To say
that the State can pass a law imposing upon
him an obligation such as must, if carried out
to its logical results, destroy his business and
ruin him financially is to acknowledge a situa-
tion never intended to exist under our Consti-
tution.

"Under the amendments to our Federal
Constitution, the colored man is accorded equal
rights with the white man. There shall be no
discrimination on account of color or previous
condition of servitude. The United States
Court has held, however, that each State has
the right to make legal provisions whereby the
colored man, while enjoying the same kind of
accommodation, must conform to such reasona-

ble rules as may be adopted by the State for
the separation of the white from the colored
people in hotels, railways, and other places of

public accommodation.

to this end every member of this association should bend his energies. The combined power and influence of the 7,000 hotels in this State will be found to be great enough to secure the repeal of an act which has already been shown to be repugnant to the minds of a large majority of our people."

This law we believe is unnecessary and attempts to instill a spirit into our statutes which is unwise and improper. The relations of different races of men to each other in the end regulate themselves and the only end which is gained, is that hostility and enmity are encouraged among those whose relations prior to the passage of the act were friendly and pleasant.

Much has appeared in these columns in regard to uniformity of State laws and the subject is receiving increased notice from periodicals in America, while kindred attempts are being made in England to attain the same end.

One of the most important conventions of the year and one that was called together by imperative necessity, is that which the InterState Commissioners are now holding at De

means of obtaining uniform State legislation. Thirty States are represented and the delegates include some of the best constitutional and legal authorities in the country, and although their work is of an advisory nature, the result should have weight with State Legislatures.

"I believe, therefore, that, even assuming the Malby law to be constitutional, it is within the province of the proprietor of a hotel to estab-troit. The object is to consider the ways and lish rules for the conduct of his business whereby colored people shall be obliged to occupy such special rooms as may be assigned them, provided the accomodation furnished in such room is equal to that afforded to white people in a similar room of the hotel. And should a colored person refuse to accept such accomodation and insist upon entering that part of the hotel reserved for white people, I believe the landlord would be justified in forcibly ejecting

him from the hotel.

"It should be borne in mind that, in order to entitle a colored man to the damages arbitrarily fixed by statute, he must prove to the satisfaction of a jury that his exclusion was on account of his color. Should the colored man, therefore, unduly force himself where he is not wanted and succeed in having himself ejected from a hotel, I believe that in an action for damages brought under the Malby law, juries would be likely to treat that statute in the same manner they have recently treated the act prohibiting the opening of barber shops on Sunday. "The real solution of the question, however, lies in the repeal of the law itself. And

[ocr errors]

The various laws relating to marriage and divorce are the principal subjects to be considered. No one will deny that the lack of uniformity among the States on these matters

has caused a national scandal. All the States have their own marital and divorce laws, and in many cases they are conflicting. Certain States, for example, permit marital relations that are not recognized by others, and other States grant divorces which would not be given across their borders. The Dakota divorce, which is obtained by what is practically a fraudulent residence, has become a crying national disgrace, and it is high time to extirpate this evil.

Among the other subjects outlined for consideration, we find no allusion to the necessity of a uniform bankruptcy law. It is possible that the commissioners may have felt that ac

tion on this subject would not fall within their province; and, on the other hand, it is possible that the news reports unintentionally omitted mention of this important subject. Many States have bankruptcy laws and they are neither uniform, nor are they all just to the non-resident creditors. To obtain a uniform national bankruptcy law, national legislation is necessary, and attempts have been repeatedly made to secure one since the repeal of the Jencke's law in 1879; but the lack of uniformity in the States that have laws ought to be considered by the commissioners.

The system in vogue in New York of preferring creditors often operates to the disadvantage of the non-resident creditor, though his claims are just and should have equal consideration with the assignee. It was this and other unsatisfactory workings of the State bankruptcy laws that brought southern and western Democrats to their senses and gave the Torrey bill more chance for success than any other measure. But an objection to the present vicious and indiscriminate State system, and one that ought to have some weight with the commissioners, is the fact that no one of them is familiar with all the bankruptcy laws of the various States that have, them.

Other subjects will be taken up, and among them are notes, checks, legal documents, the systems of weights and measures. Legislation is needed on all these matters, looking to a uniformity in State regulation, and it is to be hoped that the commissioners will accomplish results that will bear fruit when the State Legislatures again convene.

Congress should pass a statute providing for the appointment of a commission, few in numbers, who will receive. proper remuneration, and whose report can be acted on by the Legislatures with some degree of intelligent precision and with the same result in view.

The Albany Law school begins the scholastic year on September 24 after a complete reorganization of the trustees and faculty. New members have also been added to the faculty as special lecturers. Hon. Amasa J. Parker succeeds Hon. W. L. Learned as President of the Board and Newton J. Fiero becomes Dean in

The faculty now con

place of Lewis B. Hall. sists of A. V. V. Raymond, President of the University; J. Newton Fiero, Dean on Procedure, Equity and Torts; James W. Eaton, on Evidence and Contracts; Eugene Burlingame, on Criminal Law; James F. Tracey on Corporations, and Joseph A. Lawson, on Real and Personal Property.

During the year a course of special lectures will be delivered as follows: By Hon. Charles Andrews, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals; Hon. Judson S. Landon, on Constitutional Laws; Hon. William L. Learned, on Trial Causes; Hon. Alton B. Parker, of the Supreme Court; Hon. Matthew Hale, on Professional Ethics; Hon. D. Cady Herrick, on Municipal Corporations; Charles A. Collin, on the Statistics of New York, and Andrew McFarlane, M. D., on Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity.

The change in the faculty and trustees will bring the school in closer touch with Union university, of which it became a part in 1873. The change from three terms to semesters is considered an advantage to the school. The first semester will begin on September 24 and close on January 31, with a two weeks' vacation at the holidays. The second semester be gins on February 3 and ends on June 3. The close of the scholastic year; June 4, will be commencement day. Already the application for admission to the school give promise of a much larger attendance than last year.

Under the act of 1894, providing for the appointment of examiners to conduct a uniform system of examination throughout the State, the examination this year must be much more carefully conducted than when under the direction of the court. The consideration of this matter has suggested to the present management the desirability of a course especially designed as a preparation for bar examinations, the instructions to be of the most practical character, covering those topics of law and practice upon which the student will be examined for admission, at the same time giving him a knowledge of legal principles which will be of actual and immediate benefit in the first years of his professional career. Moreover, this course is designed to meet the needs of those who desire to devote but a single year of the time required by statutes in study in a law

עד

Ex

school.

Mock courts will be held the same as in preceding years.

A good many years ago prizes were awarded, but this had stopped until the present year, when the following have been founded and will be awarded at the next commencement.

The Edward Thomson Co., law publishers, of Northport, Long Island, N. Y., offer the American and English encyclopedia of law, to the graduate who shall reach the highest standing in the performance of his general duties and deportment.

A prize of fifty dollars will be awarded to the graduate who shall pass the best examinations during the course; to be known as the "Amasa J. Parker" prize, Judge Parker having been one of the organizers of and for many years a lecturer at the school.

Frederick W. Cameron, Esq., offers a prize of twenty-five dollars, to be given to the graduate who shall make the best presentation of his cases at Moot Court during his entire course.

During the summer a number of changes and improvements have been made to the school. A record room and needed cloakroom have been provided, as well as new and improved cases. Individual seats have been placed in the lecture room, giving it a capacity of sixty-five.

It is but natural for us to take great pride in the old school whose earliest successes were due to the efforts of Dean, Parker and other learned jurists, and whose history is replete with the brilliant achievements of a large number of the ablest members of the profession.

CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER MILITARY

RESERVATIONS.

What is the extent of the civil authority over the persons and property at a military post and on a military reservation?

What are the limitations of the civil power, when it has any, and where is the line distinctly drawn between the jurisdiction of the military and that of the civil tribunals?

When can the military officer say to the civilian "hands off," and when must he bow before his superior authority?

These are a few of the practical questions connected with this subject which every officer is interested in being able to answer knowingly, definitely and positively.

As Gen. John Gibbon said when he assumed the command of the Department of the Columbia in 1885, "The law is supreme," and it is to this supreme authority that we must go to find an answer to these questions.

They are not new. They have arisen, have been argued and passed upon time and again, but the trouble is at widely different times and places and it involves much labor to search out the answers. Hence, I cannot tell you anything new or original, but can only give you, in as concise a form as possible, the results of my search.

[ocr errors]

Starting with the maxim, "The law is supreme,' the next questious are, what is the law, how is it invoked and by what means applied?

The law is intended to enforce the right and prevent the wrong, to uphold the good and punish the bad. It is dormant so long as there is no infraction of it; it cannot act when there is no offense committed, because there is no offender for it to act upon.

But when a crime is committed, then the law begins to act, and acts through its constituted agencies. For the purposes of our discussion, these agencies are either the civil or military tribunals.

All

The powers of these tribunals are either distinctly prescribed by statute or by long and accepted usage. They all owe their powers primarily to that great source and foundation of all our rights and liberties the constitution and the laws passed in accordance with it. The only court actually created by the Constitution was the Supreme Court. the others were created by the acts of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution. While the court-martial may claim the honor of being older than the Constitution by reason of having been in be one of the inferior courts authorized by that inexistence before its adoption, yet it is held not to strument, and in fact is said not to be a part of the judicial system of the government, but to belong to the executive branch. (20 How. 65; 114 U. S. 564; Kurtz v. Moffit, 115 U. S. 500.) But it of necessity, by reason of its functions, in its forms and procedure is assimilated to all other courts. Like all other courts, its "jurisdiction and judicial authority must be derived from the Constitution and laws of the United States, and it can only exercise such power as has been conferred on it by acts of Congress."

The military courts, few in number, have their powers clearly defined by the laws of Congress to be found mostly in the articles of war, so that there is ordinarily no difficulty in determining which one of these should undertake and pass upon a case, but the question of the jurisdiction of a civil court arises when the res, the subject matter, or the person is amenable to either or both of these tribunals.

The court martial being essentially and exclusively a criminal court, has no jurisdiction over any

matter of a purely civil nature, such as the enforcement of a contract or the collection of a debt, so that all matters of that nature are referred to the proper civil courts where the soldier stands on the same footing as the citizen.

The determination of the question of jurisdiction involves the person or persons concerned, the crime committed and the locus or place where the event happened or the cause originated.

Suppose two citizens, not in any way connected with the military service, or a soldier and a citizen, or two soldiers, should engage in a fight on this

reservation.

In the first case the military authorities would have no jurisdiction because they would have none over the persons concerned. They could only interfere beforehand to prevent it.

regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States."

Now in accordance with these provisions, the States, in giving their consent to the purchase of land and in ceding jurisdiction to the U. S., generally reserved concurrent jurisdiction over the same. As an example I will give the law applicable to the Post of Plattsburgh, N. Y.

LAWS OF NEW YORK.
CHAP. 18, p. 27.

AN ACT granting the consent of the State of New
York to the acquisition by the United States of
certain lands for military purposes in the town of
Plattsburgh, Clinton county, N. Y., and ceding
jurisdiction over the same.

Approved by the Governor, March 6th, 1890.

In the second case they would have jurisdiction Passed by a two-thirds vote.

over the soldier but not over the citizen.

In the third case they would have jurisdiction over both because they were both soldiers.

In the second and third cases the civil jurisdiction would extend to all parties in both cases because it exists by law concurrently with the military jurisdiction, and if the military authority should decline to act the civil federal courts could properly take cognizance of the offense, but not any State

court.

This brings us to those cases where the conflict arises between the civil and the military jurisdiction.

The People of the State of New York represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The consent of the State of New York is hereby given to the United States to acquire, by condemnation, purchase or gift, in conformity with the laws of this State, one or more pieces of land in the town of Plattsburgh, county of Clinton, and State of New York, not to exceed in all 1,000 acres, for military purposes for use as a parade ground, or for any military purposes connected with the United States military post at Plattsburgh, and the said United States shall have, hold, occupy and own said lands when thus ac

the same and every part thereof, subject to the restrictions hereafter mentioned.

§ 2. The jurisdiction of the State of New York, in and over the said land or lands mentioned in the

Without attempting to argue against the pro-quired, and exercise jurisdiction and control over priety of subjecting the soldier to two jurisdictions but accepting it as a well established fact that he is so amenable the question for us to consider is, what is the proper course for each to pursue ? Leaving out the case of the civil liability alone, where the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction let us consider a case where the jurisdiction is concurrent.

foregoing section, when acquired by the United. States shall be, and the same hereby is, ceded to the United States, but the jurisdiction hereby ceded shall continue no longer than the United States

It is well to explain here the legal authority for shall own the said lands. this concurrent jurisdiction.

The Constitution says (Art. X, Amendments). "The powers not delegated to the U. S. nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." It also says (Art. I,

Sec. 8, c. 17):

"The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever (over the District of Columbia) and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same may be, for the erections of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings." And (Art. IV, Sec. 3, c. 2):

§ 3. The said consent is given and the said jurisdiction ceded upon the express condition that the State of New York shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over the said land and such criminal or other process as may issue or lands, so far as that all civil process in all cases, under the laws or authority of the State of New York against any person or persons charged with crimes or misdemeanors committed within said State, may be executed therein the same way and manner as if such consent had not been given or jurisdiction ceded, except so far as such process may affect the real or personal property of the United States.

$ 4. The jurisdiction hereby ceded shall not vest "To dispose of and make all needful rules and until the United States shall have acquired the title

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »