States, but also to guard the states from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the general government. And as the constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that the act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the federal government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void. No one can fail to see that if such an arbiter had not been provided in our complicated system of government internal tranquillity could not have been preserved. . . . . In organizing such a tribunal it is evident that every precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise to fit it for the high duty with which it was intrusted. . . . . So long, therefore, as this constitution shall endure this tribunal must exist with it, deciding in the peaceful forms of judicial proceedings the angry and irritating controversies between sovereignties which in the other countries have been determined by the arbitrament of force." President Taft in his message to Congress December 7, 1909, said: "In my judgment a change in judicial procedure, with a view to reducing its expense to private litigants in civil cases, and facilitating the dispatch of business and final decision in both civil and criminal cases, constitutes the greatest need in our American institutions." In this connection, I take the liberty of quoting from a very excellent brief filed in support of S. 68, H. R. 3828, a bill "disregarding technical errors" and for "reforming procedure." "The American Bar Association, speaking for the Bar of every state, urges upon Congress to reform these abuses and in the administration of justice in the federal courts to redeem the promise of Magna Charta that justice shall be denied or delayed to no man, and that the administration of justice shall not be cumbrous, dilatory, and consequently expensive." The last few years have witnessed history-making legislation, all builded upon that great foundation which our Supreme Court has well characterized as "public or general welfare." In times of peace we have seen the judicial ratification of the just principle that a man is liable in taxation according to benefits received, and the principle of the income tax has received its long delayed accord, that principle which makes an assessment upon monies taxable which too long escaped and has therefore removed a tremendous burden in taxation from the shoulders of the poor. Likewise have we seen judicial sanction given the rights of labor, the great creative force of our government, and to the care in environment of those who toil surrounded by dangerous machinery or appliances and those who in the depths of mine or on rushing railroad give their strength and health that our national life may be preserved and made progressive. With the declaration of war, from the constitution have been drawn powers to "raise and support armies," "to provide and maintain a navy," "to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department thereof." "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence." Ex parte Milligan. By the authority of this great instrument during the present emergency, we have said to the conscienceless speculator who would lay unholy tribute upon the necessities of our daily life and to the predatory who seek unconscionable advantage of the stress of our government in the furnishing of utilities for the very perpetuity of our national life, that the President of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, shall be vested with complete control of food stuffs and fuel and utilities of warfare, and that a fair and reasonable price may be fixed as compensation to be paid therefor, but that the urgency of the national situation shall be no ground for even affording opportunity for privilege or power, no matter how great, attacking us in our inherent rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Then, too, has been builded by legislative enactment the greatest citizen army the world has ever seen. Passing the excitement and enthusiasm of the flag-waving period, we are now in the grim and ghastly business of war, and in a very few weeks with solemn tread will march a great army of the flower of the youth of the land, young men not exulting in war, but holding themselves in readiness to obey their country's command in time of national danger. It is indeed & monument to those peaceful processes of our law that we, a free people, of a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, have in good time and good stead caused to be assembled this mighty fighting force that the rights of liberty and justice may prevail. An Americanism of unswerving and loyal devotion is the answer to those who carpingly would criticize, for with our entrance into the great war there is for all within our gates one citizenship-American; one cause-constitutional liberty; one result a victory for justice, freedom and enduring peace. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPARATIVE LAW BUREAU The Tenth Annual Meeting of the Comparative Law Bureau of The American Bar Association was held in the Court of Appeals Room, Town Hall, Saratoga Springs, New York, on September 3, 1917, at 2 P. M. The Director, Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut, presided. The minutes of the last annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois, were read and approved. The Treasurer's report was read, and unanimously approved. The Director then delivered his annual address. (The address follows these minutes, p. 648.) The report made by the Board of Managers of the Bureau to the American Bar Association, including the Treasurer's report, was read by the Secretary, and both were, on motion, approved. (For report, see page 355, July, 1917, number of THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL.) W. O. Hart, of Louisiana, called attention to the fact that Louisiana had recently adopted a law, giving the right to soldiers absent from the state, to vote, a fact not mentioned by the Director in his annual address. On motion, duly carried, the Director appointed as a Nominating Committee to nominate officers for the ensuing year, W. O. Hart, of Louisiana, and Burt E. Barlow; of Michigan. The committee, after retiring for consideration, returned and reported the following nominations: For Director: Simeon E. Baldwin, of Connecticut. For Managers: Andrew A. Bruce, of North Dakota; William W. Smithers, of Pennsylvania; Roscoe Pound, of Massachusetts; John H. Wigmore, of Illinois; Frederick W. Lehmann, of St. Louis, Missouri. The respective nominees were unanimously elected for the ensuing year. It was reported that Axel Teisen, of Pennsylvania, had been duly elected Assistant Secretary for the coming year. The Secretary called attention to the fact that this was the decennial meeting of the Bureau, and reviewed the work of the Bureau during the 10 years of its history, pointing out the increasing importance of the work, and the growing recognition of the Bureau's work in foreign fields, as well as in the United States. Attention was called to the fact that Mr. C. H. Wang, President of the Law Codification Commission of the Ministry of Justice for the Republic of China, would resume his work as an associate editor for the field of China, and had also offered the Bureau a translation of the Swiss Law of Obligations, the fifth part of the Swiss Civil Code. It was announced that the translation of the Argentine Code was now published, and on sale by the Boston Book Company. The early publication of the translation of "Las Siete Partidas" was hoped for. The report of Dean John H. Wigmore, as to the work of the Bureau for the future, in the way of translation of foreign codes, was submitted and discussed. Judge Charles S. Lobingier (U. S. District Court, Shanghai, China) commented upon "the extreme importance of the work that this Bureau is doing as compared with the other branches of the work of the American Bar Association," as he had found from personal experience, in the recognition of the work of this Bureau in foreign fields. He urged upon the Bureau the great value to the profession, and in particular to the countries with the Spanish law as a basis, of the proposed translation of “Las Siete Partidas." In his view, this book was a written basis for the Spanish law, and its translation would be of great practical value to all Spanish speaking countries; and would probably become, in the English translation, the Blackstone for the Philippines, and law students there, as well as in Louisiana, Porto Rico, and other countries where the reading of the old Spanish would be more difficult than the reading of an English translation. Mr. E. C. Massie (Va.) and Mr. W. O. Hart spoke also in the same vein. Upon motion of Judge Lobingier and W. E. Walz (Maine) it was unanimously resolved, that it was the sense of |