should have first ascertained the wishes of the people instead of ratifying hastily. More than two thousand amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in Congress. Forty-eight were proposed in one Congress, fifty-four in another, and seventythree in another. Nine proposed amendments have passed the Senate and failed in the House of Representatives, and the Senate has rejected as many that passed the House. Those facts indicate that the sober sense of the people is against frequent alterations of the fundamental law except in case of clear necessity. To the English historian Lecky the inability to amend our Constitution to suit every notion of the day seemed the greatest blessing of the American. Bryce also has expressed the like opinion. "Moreover, the process prescribed for amendment," he says, "interposes various delays and formalities before a change can be carried through, pending which the people can reconsider the issues involved and recede, if they think fit, from projects that may have at first attracted them. Both in Switzerland and in the States of the American Union it has repeatedly happened that constitutional amendments prepared and approved by the legislatures have been rejected by the people, not merely because the mass of the people are often more conservative than their representatives, or less amenable to the pressure of particular interests' or sections of opinion, but because fuller discussions revealed objections whose weight had not been appreciated when the proposal first appeared. In these respects the rigid Constitution has real elements of stability." 6 The history of proposed amendments proves clearly that } what Congress and the people are eager for to-day may be deemed undesirable to them to-morrow. But amendments the need of which the people had well considered before they were proposed, and of the usefulness of which they were fully convinced, have been very easily adopted. Of the many particulars in which the practical operation of the Con 1 stitution has been next to marvelous, there is none in which it has worked more successfully than in fitting itself by amendments to the advancing opinions of mankind. And by judicial construction which has been expressive of prevailing thought, the general principles stated in the Constitution have been adapted to a great variety of conditions of industrial, commercial, and legal facts of which the Founders of the Republic never could have dreamed. As for more than a century and a quarter of unexampled social, civil, and material advancement, in which it has been the controlling force, the Constitution has applied itself, adapted itself, developed itself, amended itself, and, through stress and shock of civil war the like of which no other constitution ever felt, maintained its equilibrium, the American has reason to believe that his fundamental law contains inherently what the Scriptures call "the power of an endless life." "Love thou thy land, with love far-brought "A land of settled government, A land of just and old renown, Where Freedom slowly broadens down A LIST OF THE LEADING CASES EXPOUND ING THE CONSTITUTION, WITH NOTES ACCUSED. See CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ALIEN, entitled to equal protection as though citizen. Truax v. Raich (1915), 239 U. S. 33 naturalization of, may be revoked for disloyalty. v. Herberger (1921), 272 Fed. 278 ALIEN CONTRACT LABOR LAW, 243 United States 57 held not to exclude minister of gospel. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), 143 U. S. 457 AMENDMENT, cannot be ratified by referendum to people. Hawke v. Smith BANK OF UNITED STATES, 6 171 256 Act of Congress creating constitutional. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), 4 Wheat. 316 Act of Congress supersedes State insolvency law. Sturges v. debtor imprisoned, released by State but held for debt to Nation. State cannot release debt owing to citizen of another State. State law may release debtor as to future but not past con- 58 BILL OF ATTAINDER, in Missouri constitution. Cummings v. State (1866), 4 Wall. in law of West Virginia. Pierce v. Carskadon (1872), 16 Wall. 234 86 277 86 BILL OF RIGHTS IN PHILIPPINES, violated by unusual punishment. Weems v. United States (1910), CHILD LABOR, State not Congress may regulate. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), CHINESE, born in United States of permanent resident parents is citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 169 U. S. 649 . CITIZENSHIP, Negro not citizen, therefore without standing in court. Dred . but Fourteenth Amendment made Negro citizen of Nation and CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875, in part unconstitutional. Civil Rights Cases (1883), 109 U. S. 3 (24) COMMERCE, 224 53 238 237 236 158, 234, 244, 250 defined and explained by Chief Justice Marshall. Gibbons v. Og- stamp tax on bill of lading of exports unconstitutional. Fairbank State cannot prevent piping oil or gas beyond boundary. Has- CONFISCATION ACT OF JULY, 1862, upheld as constitutional. Bigelow v. Forrest (1869), 9 Wall. 339; for slave valid when made could not be impaired by State constitu- See also DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE. 92 nor by withdrawing tax exemption conferred upon Indian land. 256 U. S. 170 COPYRIGHT CLAUSE, Brown v. Feldman (1921), does not authorize legislation for trade-marks. Trade-Mark Cases CORPORATION, is citizen of State creating it. Bank of United States v. Deveaux not citizen of United States, therefore liberty may be abridged by COURTS, can exercise authority only when "case" is brought for relief. Osborn v. United States Bank (1824), 9 Wheat. 738 (819) 138 not ousted by war except in area of military operations. Caldwell v. Parker (1920), 252 U. S. 376 not subject to review by referendum to people. People v. West- dying declaration admissible under Constitution against accused. editor cannot be tried for criminal libel in foreign district. United DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE, impairing obligation of contract. Trustees v. Woodward (1819), DUE PROCESS OF LAW, defined and explained by Supreme Court. Murray's Lessee v. EDITOR. See MAIL; NEWSPAPER; TRIAL. 146 V 243 220 220 148 93 213 223 243 regular and constitutional. National Prohibition Cases (1920), 254 seven-year limitation for ratification of, valid. Dillon v. Gloss (1921), 256 U. S. 368 (374) 254 ELECTIONS, CORRUPT PRACTICES IN, Act not applicable to primaries. Newberry v. United States Congress may safeguard voters at. Ex parte Siebold (1879), supplemented and completed by war Amendments. Slaughter- denied by State law requiring eighty per cent employes be native not denied to Negro by State law requiring separate railway ac- |