irrespective of size, was entitled to but one vote. Finally, all signed except Maryland. The reasons why Maryland objected sprang from "the relations of the vacant lands in the Northwest." It maintained that the colonies ought to relinquish their claims to these lands for the purpose of creating a "common fund for a common benefit.”

Maryland after some time was prevailed upon, and instructed her delegates to sign the articles. This opposition on the part of Maryland was the signal of good results in the future.

"This government differed from the revolutionary in only one respect— it rested upon authority." The form was federal, otherwise it was substantially the same as the revolutionary government. It was remarked by an observer about the Articles of Confederation:

66

By this political compact the United States congress have the exclusive power for the following purposes without being able to execute one of them: They may make and conclude treaties, but they can only recommend the observance of them. They may appoint ambassadors, but they cannot even defray the expenses of their tables. They may borrow money in their own name on the faith of the union; but they cannot pay a dollar. They may coin money; but they cannot purchase an ounce of bullion. They may make war and determine what number of troops are necessary; but they cannot raise a soldier. In short, they may declare everything but can do nothing."

The state of affairs during this period was anything but encouraging to the union. All the states were at war with one another in commercial matters. "Congress, without a shadow of authority, endeavored to conduct the government. The central authority was only an authority by sufferance, and therefore at the caprice of the state legislature." The currency was bad. No foreign nations would enter into diplomatic relations. The country was in a deplorable state.

The people began to realize that it was essential to yield many of their claims and privileges to the national government, that the "impending dangers" were growing more serious from day to day, and that it was very likely that the "power and independence of the states" would be "substantially annihilated," unless a decisive and important step should be taken to meet the growing wants of the people. Thus statutes were passed by the different state legislatures, releasing their rights and claims to the western land to the national government. This gave rise to the passage of the Ordinance of 1787. "The adoption of this Ordinance led to the acceptance of the 'federative principle,' a principle purely American in origin."

It will now suffice to show the legal application of these principles and their vital importance. The federative principle is a principle of fundamental law. It is capable of development, and it has for its object "to adjust the mutual relations between the forces of nationalism and separatism. These in their nature are essentially political. Our present success and prosperity are largely due to the strong feeling of nationalism. The federative principle insures not only "a complete local self-government but gives the nation a world-wide power."

The United States Supreme Court is the "final arbiter and interpreter' of the fundamental law of the land. It is a court of common law, of equity as well as of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

In order to interpret the meaning of a particular provision in the Constitution it becomes necessary to resort to the preamble which sets forth the object and motives for which the Constitution was framed. Political parties have often taken their stand upon the two phrases, “We, the people of the United States," and "do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States."

The doctrine of the partition of powers exists by implication in the Constitution.

The following are some of the legal results of the partition of power: First. "Over political questions the courts have no authority, but must accept the determination of the political departments of the government as conclusive."

Second. "The several departments of government are equal in dignity and of co-ordinate authority."

Third. "Neither department can subject the other to its jurisdiction, or strip it of any portion of its constitutional powers." (Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law.)

"Congress in 1870 passed an act for the purpose of regulating both federal and state elections. The constitutionality of this act was questioned. It was given to the Supreme Court for decision, and they decided that the law was constitutional as to the federal part, but not as to the state."

One of the strongest decisions made in favor of nationalism was in the case of Chisholm vs. State of Georgia, in 2 Dallas.

The court said: "Whoever considers in a combined and comprehensive review, the general texture of the Constitution will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted for such purposes a national government, complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive

and judiciary, and in all these powers extending over the whole nation. Is it congruous that, with regard to such purposes, any man, or body of men, any person, natural or artificial, should be permitted to claim successfully an entire exemption from the jurisdiction of the national government?"

On the other hand, one of the most extreme decisions in favor of separatism was in the slaughter-house cases.

Some of the points decided in these cases were: "Whatever is not conferred is withheld, and belongs to the several states or to the people thereof."

"The presumption must be, that the state rightfully does what it assumes to do, until it is made to appear how, by constitutional concessions, it has divested itself of the power, or by its own constitution has for the time rendered the exercise unwarrantable."

"A state law granting to a state corporation the exclusive right for a term of years to control the slaughtering of cattle in and near to one of its cities, and requiring that all cattle and other animals intended for sale or slaughter in that district shall be brought to the yards and slaughter-houses of the corporation, and authorizing the corporation to exact certain prescribed fees for the use of its wharves and for each animal landed or slaughtered, may be maintained as a state regulation of police." (Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law.)

The bulk of decisions, however, are in favor of nationalism. The reason for this may be found in the court adhering closely to the meaning of the instrument, and thereby disregarding all questions of a political or historical nature.

Hence, it is apparent that the fundamental principles of our government are in conformity with the laws of nature; that they are the result of a development, and are in harmony with the principles of evolution; that there has been a strong tendency towards unification or law and order, and not towards dissolution and anarchy. The forces of nationalism and separatism represent the strong and weak, the progressive and reactionary elements the positive and negative in our politics.

Franklin A. Becher

MINOR TOPICS

MARCH 25 NEW YEAR'S DAY

INTERESTING DATA ABOUT THE ENGLISH CALENDAR

"The day on which the year of our Lord in the Church of England beginneth" is the designation of the 25th of March in the old English prayer-books; and this, not in reference to the church year, for that began then as now with Advent, but meaning thereby the civil year. So recently was the change made from this day to January 1st-scarce a century and a quarter a go-that our great grandfathers kept New Year's Day on this Feast of the Annunciation, and for over four centuries previous in our Fatherland Lady Day had ushered in the new year.

The recurrence, then, of this 25th day of March, now simply a minor festival in the calendar, but to our ancestors full of all the associations, religious and social, of a happy new year, suggests a short article on the civil calendar, and gives me an opportunity to say something of the changes in our modern year, and to explain one or two perplexing difficulties.

The etymology of the Roman names of the months, retained in our own calendar, shows that March was their first month, because September, October, November and December were respectively their seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth months. Quintilis and Sextilis, the original names of July and August, testify to the same fact. I shall not dwell on the calendar of Julius Cæsar, save to say that his reform substantially rectified the disorders of the then civil year, fixing its length at 3651 days, and dividing it into twelve months, nearly as they exist now. The quarterdays, neglected yearly, were combined every fourth year, and the accumulated twenty-four hours became a new day in these leap years, and was inserted after the 24th of February. This arrangement was correct in principle, but a small error in practice brought back the old disorder, and threatened, in coming ages, to interrupt the regular recurrence of the great astronomical periods.

Let us attempt an explanation. The true solar year is not 365 days 6 hours long, but is about eleven minutes shorter. To intercalate, then, every fourth or leap year twenty-four hours, or a whole day, is to insert about forty-five minutes too much; or, which is the same thing, is to insert the day forty-five minutes too soon, and therefore it hastens by that amount of time the coming of any particular date; say for instance the vernal equinox, on the 21st of March. This date well illustrates the point, for it was in reference to it that the Julian calendar had to give way to the modern reform of Pope Gregory. Let us start with the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, in which year the equinox coincided with its true date, March 21st, and but for this annual excess of eleven minutes in reckoning, it would con

tinue always to fall on that day. The true year, however, being eleven minutes shorter than the calendar year, it is plain that the vernal equinox would anticipate its calendar recurrence by this number of minutes every year, or by forty-five minutes every fourth year; and in about 130 years it would anticipate it by a whole day. That is to say in A.D. 455 the equinox would fall on March 20th; in A.D. 585 it would fall on March 19th, and so on for all subsequent intervals of 130 years. To rectify such a mistake as this, we must needs drop a day in A.D. 455, and call March 20th the 21st; or, if neglected then, we must drop two days in A.D. 585, and call March 19th the 21st.

This is the exact result of the practical error in the Julian reckoning, and what was actually done in his reform of the calendar by Gregory XIII. in the year A.D. 1582, at which time the discrepancy amounted to ten days. The Pope ordered the ten days to be dropped in that year by calling the 5th of October the 15th, thus bringing the solar and calendar years together. To keep them together in future, while he kept the old leap-year system, he introduced a compensating device, which averages the losses and the gains, and balances the scheme. This was to make the century years, such as 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc., non-leap years, except every fourth century, such as 1600, 2000, etc., which were to remain leap This scheme keeps the calendar right for all future time.

years.

The Papal countries of Europe at once adopted the Gregorian calendar, or new style; but England persisted in ignoring the change of style for nearly two centuries, and it was not till A.D. 1752 that she adopted the reform. At that time another day had been lost, and eleven days had to be accounted for. Russia still holds on to the old style, and her reckoning is now twelve days behind the rest of the world.

These are the principles of the English calendar, and in applying them it will be plainer and more interesting to take some special date. For this purpose I select Washington's birthday.

The family Bible records Washington's birth on "ye 11th day of February, 173," and on the spot where stood his humble home was placed, in 1815, by his step-grandson, G. W. P. Custis, a stone slab inscribed: "Here the 11th day of February, 173, George Washington was born." These records fix the date under the old style, and this was the date on which he kept his birthday till he was twenty years old. He would have written it February 11, 1731. It was near the end of that year, about six weeks before New Year's Day, 1732, which was March 25. He would have been twenty years old, then, on February 11, 1751, but that day never came, for the year 1751 ended December 31, and the year 1752 began the next day, January 1. the British Parliament having just changed New Year's Day from March 25 to January 1, and applied the change for the first time to the year 1752. The change simply shortened the year 1751 by taking away January, February and March, and putting them at the beginning of the year 1752. His twentieth anniversary, then, would fall February 11, 1752.