he severs his connection with the corporation, it cannot be heard to claim any property he may subsequently acquire. His obligation runs with his membership and the latter may be terminated at will.

With this privilege of withdrawal expressly recognised, we are unable to say that the agreement-expressed in Sec. XII of the complainant's Constitution-that the gains and acquisitions of members shall belong to the corporation, must be condemned. These go to the corporation in exchange for the privilege of membership and to further the common purpose to which the members are devoted. No constitutional right is invaded and no statutory restriction is transgressed. The legislature of New Jersey, which, subject to constitutional inhibition, is the arbiter of the public policy of that State, granted the charter by special act to the Benedictine Society of "religious men living in community," and it cannot be said that the Constitution adopted by the Order was repugnant to the charter provisions or exceeded the authority plainly intended to be conferred. It would seem to be clear that the obligation assumed instead of being opposed to the public policy of the State where it was created was directly sanctioned.

The decision has also interesting social aspects because of its observations as to the lawfulness of a form of agreement for living in community and holding all property and income

in common. "The validity of agreements providing for community ownership," declared Justice Hughes, "with renunciation of individual rights of property during the continuance of membership in the community, where there is freedom to withdraw, has been repeatedly affirmed." The legal sanction for several communal societies, such as the "Separatists,"1 the "Harmony Society" community 2 of Pennsylvania, and the "Oneida Community" of New York, is set forth. Viewing the matter "solely as a business undertaking," the Court found nothing subversive of law or public policy in such a community arrangement, and quoted with approval the New York Court of Appeals' characterisation of the Oneida Community, the "basic proposition" of which was said to be

the absolute and complete surrender of the separate and individual rights of property of the persons entering it; the abandonment of all purely selfish pursuits, and the investiture of the title to their property and the fruits of their industry in the common body, from which they could not afterwards be severed or withdrawn except by unanimous consent. It was fashioned according to the Pentecostal ideal, that all who

1 Goesele vs. Bimeler (14 Howard's Reports, page 589). Schwartz vs. Duss (187 U. S. Reports, page 8).

Burt vs. Oneida Community (137 N. Y. Reports, page 346).

believed should be together and have all things common. It was intended to be in fact, as they frequently styled themselves, but a single family upon a large scale with only one purse, where self was to be abjured and the general good alone considered.

THE

CHAPTER XIII

"SEPARATE-COACH" LAW AND THE SLEEPING

CAR

CONSTITUTIONAL aspects of the perennial problem of equality in transportation accommodations for the white and African races, were before the Supreme Court at the end of 1914, in a controversy 1 involving the so-called "Separate-Coach" law of the State of Oklahoma. A day or two before this law was to go into effect five negro citizens of the State applied to the Federal courts for an injunction against five railroad companies, to restrain the companies from complying with the provisions of the statute. They asked for this on the twofold ground, in substance, that its plan of separate, but supposedly equal, facilities for the two races, was repugnant to the "commerce clause" and to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The United States Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which is one of the Western Circuits, sustained demurrers to the bills filed by the complainants and ruled adversely to their right

1 McCabe vs. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (235 U. S. Reports, page 151).

to stop the taking effect of the statute upon the allegations made by them. When they brought their complaints to the Supreme Court, that tribunal without dissent affirmed the action of the courts below and held that the suit could not be maintained. Justice Hughes wrote the opinion of the Court, and declared a result concurred in by all his colleagues.

The social, political, or ethnological expediency of the Oklahoma "Separate-Coach" law, of course, was not passed upon by the Supreme Court or written about by Justice Hughes. The question before the Court and before him was the legal and constitutional question of the correctness of the challenge that the statute, in its tenor and practical workings, would impinge upon rights assured by the Federal Constitution. Members of the Court, in passing upon a statute enacted by a State, may feel the measure to be very wise and salutary, yet unconstitutional; or they may deem the measure to be highly unwise and inexpedient, yet unproscribed by the fundamental law. Questions of expediency have to be left to the Legislatures and Governors, and questions of infringement of fundamental right have to be faced, without expression of independent judgment as to the social wisdom of the measures under consideration. No doubt some of the members of the Supreme Court would have voted for, and others would have voted against, the "Separate-Coach" law had they