the United States is the direct descendent of the powerful representative of the King of England, the chief executive functionary of the county.

On this account it is that the office of sheriff is a common law office, and the common law definitions of his rights and duties still remain in full force except as to the various statutory changes rendered necessary or expedient by the mere lapse of time.

Besides this as Mr. Murfree very justly observes, "the sheriff is in each of the United States a constitutional officer, recognized eo nomine as part of the machinery of the state government, and therefore although it is competent for legislatures to add to his powers or exact from him the performance of additional duties, it is upon well established legal principles beyond their powers to circumscribe his common law functions or to transfer them to other officers. This fact alone naturally increases greatly the dignity as well as the effectiveness of the office. The modern sheriff is therefore the common-law sheriff stripped of those incidents of this office which by lapse of time and changes of manners and circumstances have fallen into desuetude. On the other hand legislative enactment has added many minor functions to the office which however in no degree affect its general character.

This book gives not only a broad outline of the scope of the sheriff's duties but also much of the local and statutory law which enactments in the various states have attached to the office.

It commences with the election of a sheriff; then follow chapters on his bond and deputies, process of various kinds, its service and return, actions against him, succession and removal and compensation of the sheriff.

The object of the book is to define the functions of the modern sheriff, endowed with all his ancient powers and charged with all his modern duties. It has accomplished that object, in our opinion, completely.

It is another example of the modern tendency toward limiting the field which a text book is intended to cover. Fifty years ago the work would have attempted to cover all the possible duties of all persons who can possibly exercise a ministerial function, to-day by narrowing the scope of the work, its effectiveness is many times increased.

A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF AGENCY, by Floyd R. Mechem, Chicago-Callaghan and Company, 1889.

Mr. Mechem has given us in this volume a clear and exhaustive treatment of the

important and every day subject of agency. The general subject is treated in four books. Book I. Of the relation in general, how created and terminated; Book II. Of the authority conferred-its nature and effect; Book III. Of the execution of the authority; Book IV. Of the rights, duties and liabilities arising out of the relation. After this in book V. the law as applicable to Attorneys, Auctioneers, Brokers and Factors is separately treated of. The contents of the work is admirable while an exhaustive index a complete table of contents combine with the orderly division and arrangement of the subject to make it readily accessable on any point. The provisions of the various state codes are contained in an appendix, and a reference to the cases in the various Law Journals, Reporters and American "Decisions" and "Reports" as well as to the regular series is a very desirable feature of this work.

THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF POLICE OFFICERS AND CORONERS-by R. H. Vickers, of the Chicago Bar-Chicago, T. H. Flood & Co., 1889.

In this little volume Mr. Vickers presents the subjects in a clear and attractive style. With the increase of municipal population in the country and the turbulance consequent upon the conflict between labor and capitol the duties of the police in keeping order and the powers which they may employ to obtain that end have become matters of the greatest

interest. While the great mass of population with whom the police came in contact are apt to underrate the authority of the officer, and consider that they are authorized in resisting them to any extent on the other hand the police themselves are apt to overrate that authority and arrogate to themselves an excess of power. The author has drawn the line which bounds their authority, and his work will proof an interesting and instructive one for lawyers and laymen.

The recent struggle in Congress over the repayment of the direct tax of 1861 to the States from which it had been collected, has called attention to provisions of the Federal Constitution that are rarely considered. It is proposed, I, To sketch briefly the history of these provisions; II, To describe the manner in which direct taxes have been laid and collected; III, To consider the construction put upon these provisions by the United States Supreme Court.

The clauses of the Constitution involved, are as follows: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other

persons." (Art. 1 & 2.) "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Art. 1, $ 9.)

The history of the provisions carries us back to the early days of the Continental Congress. One of the proposed articles of confederation provided that Federal expenses should be paid by the States in proportion to their inhabitants of every age, sex and quality, except Indians not paying taxes. On July 12, 1776, Mr. Chase, of Maryland, moved to amend by inserting "white" before "inhabitants." In support of his motion he argued that slaves were property; that the surplus. profit put by the Northern farmer into cattle, horses, etc., was laid out by the Southern farmer in slaves; that there was no more justice in taxing Southern farmers on their slaves than the Northern farmers

on their cattle; that the method proposed would tax the Southern States on both numbers and wealth, while the North would be taxed on numbers only; that negroes should not be considered as members of the State more than cattle, and that they had no more interest in it.

John Adams opposed the motion with characteristic vigor. He urged that it was a matter of no consequence by what name you called the people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes than five hundred slaves. He asserted that "the condition of the laboring poor in most countries, that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern States, is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus of taxation, and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately are a fair index of wealth."

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, and other Northern members took the same view.

Benjamin Harrison, of Virginia, insisted that two slaves did not do as much work as one freeman, and moved as a compromise that two slaves should be counted as one freeman (1 Gilpin's Madison Papers, 28-32.) This seems to have been satisfactory to the Southern members, but those from the Eastern States would not accede to it. (1 Gilpin, 423.) Accordingly, a different basis of taxation was adopted, which is to be found in the Eighth Article of Confederation. The several States were to contribute to the Federal treasury "in proportion to the value of land within each State, granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon should be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled should from time to time direct and appoint."

This arrangement proved very unsatisfactory, and in 1783 the Committee on Revenue, of the Continental Congress, proposed to amend the Eighth Article by substituting population for land as a basis of taxation. In computing population for apportioning taxes, the Committee reported in favor of rating two slaves as one freeman. A long and earnest debate ensued in which the arguments employed by Chase, Adams and others in 1776, were repeated. The contending parties occupied what seem to-day anomalous positions-the Northern members asserting and the Southern members denying that slavery was as efficient an institution for producing wealth as freedom.

Towards the close of the discussion, Madison proposed as a compromise that slaves be rated as five to three. It finally prevailed, and the report of the Committee as thus modified was adopted. As only eleven States ratified this amendment, it did not become a part of the articles of confederation. It did, however, suggest the provisions of our present Constitution on the subject of apportioning representatives and direct taxes among the States. This is apparent from the debates in the Constitutional Convention.

When the clause concerning the rule of suffrage in the National Legislature came under discussion, Sherman proposed that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch be according to free inhabitants, and in the second branch that each State have one vote. Rutledge and Butler who were anxious to secure a preponderance to the South, proposed that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch be according to the quotas of contribution. Thereupon Wilson moved that the suffrage in the first branch be "in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and

condition, including those bound to service for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description except Indians not paying taxes, in each State," this, he remarked, being the rule in the act of Congress agreed to by eleven States for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States.

The discussion which followed was remarkable for earnestness, but still more remarkable for the fact that both the proslavery and the anti-slavery participants reversed the positions taken by them in the debates of 1783 and 1776. Butler, of South Carolina, for instance, argued that the labor of a slave in his State, was as productive and valuable as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; while Governeur Morris and others strenuously denied it. Each side was reminded of its inconsistency, but each maintained its present view as stoutly as though it had never championed the opposite. However, the conservative men from both sections stood for Wilson's proposition as they had done in 1783. This view was tersely presented by King. "Eleven out of thirteen States had agreed to consider slaves in the apportionment of taxation, and taxation and representation ought to go together."

The anti-slavery sentiment was voiced. by Governeur Morris, who declared "himself reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former, for he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slavetrade as would be given by allowing them a representative for the negroes; and he did not believe that those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of this trade." (2 Gilpin, 1078.)

The question whether the basis of re

presentation should include three-fifths of slaves being put four States-Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia voted. aye, and six States-Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina, voted no. Up to this time no proposition had been made to couple representation and taxation in the same clause, though King, as we have seen, declared that the two ought to go together.

On the day following the vote given above, Governeur Morris moved to add to the clause concerning representation, a proviso "that taxation shall be in proportion to representation." It was a hasty and ill-considered proposition, and could have been intended only to deter the Southern extremists from urging their demands for representation of slaves. But it was wholly unsuccessful. Butler and Pinckney expressed perfect willingness to pay even this price for enlarged representation, and renewed their assertions of the equal productiveness of slave and free labor. Cooler men like Mason, of Virginia, and' Wilson, of Pennsylvania, saw that the proposition that all taxation should be in proportion to representation, and be apportioned among the States on that basis, would drive Congress to the old plan of requisitions; while they appreciated its compensatory features, Morris, who was bitterly opposed to the plan of requisition, at once acknowledged his error, and consented that the word "direct," be inserted before taxes." Thereupon Wilson, observing "that less umbrage would perhaps be taken against the admission of slaves into the rule of representation if it should be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient in the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of taxation, and as representation was to be according to taxation, the end would be