Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:23:41.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Law in the State Courts in 1926–1927

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert E. Cushman
Robert E. Cushman*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Legislative Apportionment. The problem of the representation of large cities or metropolitan districts in state legislatures is becoming increasingly difficult and acute. The number of states in which a single center of population is with each census approaching a size which entitles it, on the basis of its inhabitants, to a controlling proportion of the representatives in the state legislature grows steadily as the current of population toward the city continues to flow. Certain states have dealt with this situation by frankly and openly discriminating against these metropolitan areas by specifying that they shall never be entitled to more than a fixed percentage of the representatives. The constitutions of certain other states do not permit this, however, but require that after each decennial census a total fixed number of members in the legislative body shall be allotted equally to districts of equal population. If this is done the metropolis is guaranteed under each apportionment the increase in representation to which its proportionate increase in population entitles it. And the answer volunteered to this problem by several state legislatures has been steadily to refuse to reapportion the state.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , August 1927 , pp. 573 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1927

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fergus v. Marks, 152 N. E. 557, 1926.

2 On the general features of the Illinois situation see p. 598 below.

3 248 Pac. 511, July, 1926.

4 222 N. Y. 494, 119 N. E. 106, 1918.

5 See vol. xii, page 476.

6 153 N. E. 562, October, 1926. For an earlier precedent see Donovan v. Suffolk County Apportionment Commissioners, 113 N. E. 740, 1916.

7 In re Opinion of Justices, 151 N. E. 680, April, 1926.

8 114 N. E. 55, 94 Oh. St. 154,1916, affirmed in 241 U. S. 505, 1916.

9 26 S. D. 5, 127 N. W. 848, 1910.

10 133 Atl. 738, June, 1926. This follows the earlier case of State v. Holland, 117 Me. 288, 104 Atl. 159, 1918, dealing with a similar question of incorporation into state law of future provisions of the future pharmacopseical requirements of Congress.

11 151 N. E. 452, March, 1926.

12 Act of March 4, 1923, 42 Stat. at L. 1499.

13 153 N. E. 58, July, 1926.

14 California, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, Wisconsin.

15 153 N. E. 854, October, 1926.

16 The question was: “Should the Congress of the United States modify the federal act to enforce the 18th Amendment so that the same shall not prohibit the manufacture, sale, transportation, or exportation of beverages which are not, in fact, intoxicating, as determined in accordance with the laws of the respective states?”

17 210 N. W. 381, October, 1926.

18 The question submitted was: “Shall the Congress of the United States amend the ‘Volstead Act’ so as to authorize the manufacture and sale of beer, for beverage purposes, of an alcoholic per cent of 2.75 per cent by weight, under governmental supervision but with the provision that no beverage so purchased shall be drunk on the premises where obtained.”

19 248 Pac. 44, August, 1926.

20 248 Pac. 146, July, 1926.

21 249 Pac. 655, September, 1926.

22 109 So. 724, October, 1926.

23 133 S. E. 843, June, 1926.

24 246 Pac. 1033, June, 1926.

25 247 Pac. 957, July, 1926.

26 170 U. S. 189, 1898.

27 In Baldi v. Gilchrist, 204 App. Div. 425, 198 N. Y. Supp. 493, 1923, a pardoned felon was denied the right to operate a taxicab on the ground that conviction of crime established bad character. In People v. Gilmore, 214 Ill. 569, 73 N. E. 737, 1905, a pardon for a conviction for crime committed in another state did not efface the moral turpitude established by that conviction so as to prevent the defendant's disbarment in Illinois. In In re Spenser, 5 Sawyer 195, Fed. Case No. 13, 234, 1878, it is held that a pardon does not obliterate a crime for purposes of establishing the good moral character necessary to obtain American citizenship by naturalization.

28 248 Pac. 569, June, 1926.

29 133 S. E. 68, April, 1926.

30 251 Pac. 808, December, 1926.

31 134 Atl. 752, October, 1926.

32 See vol. xx, page 587.

34 285 S. W. 513, June, 1926.

35 151 N. E. 48, February, 1926.

36 251 Pac. 486, December, 1926.

37 245 Pac. 1074, May, 1926.

38 152 N. E. 658, June, 1926.

39 248 Pac. 521, July, 1926.

40 McSorley v. Schroeder, 196 Ill. 99, 63 N. E. 697, 1902.

41 153 N. E. 553. October, 1926.

42 286 S. W. 275, July, 1926.

43 170 U. S. 189, 1898.

44 State v. Superior Court, 247 Pac. 942, July, 1926.

45 133 Atl. 536, February, 1927.

46 250 Pac. 456, October, 1920.

47 Authorities supporting the principal case are Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188, 1889; Perry v. Strawbridge, 209 Mo. 621, 108 S. W. 641, 1908; Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ins. Co. 1 Q. B. 147, 1892. Following the opposite rule are Shellenberger v. Ransom, 41 Neb. 631, 59 N. W. 935, 1894, overruling 31 Neb. 61, 47 N. W. 700, 1891, McAllister v. Fair, 72 Kans. 533, 84 Pac. 112, 1906; Owens v. Owens, 100 N. C. 240, 6 S. E. 794, 1888; Holloway v. McCormick, 41 Okla. 1, 136 Pac. 1111, 1913; In re Carpenter's Estate, 170 Pa. 203, 32 Atl. 637, 1895.

48 110 So. 522, November, 1926.

49 247 Pac. 1099, July, 1926.

50 See State v. Pilling, 53 Wash. 464, 102 Pac. 230. 1909; Hollis v. State, 152 Ga. 182, 108 S. E. 783, 1921; State v. Avery, 111 Kans. 588, 207 Pac. 838, 1922.

51 The statute reads: “Women shall have the same rights and privileges under the aw as men in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of residence for voting purposes, jury service, holding of office, holding and conveying property, care and custody of children, and in all other respects. The various courts, executive and administrative officers shall construe the statutes where the masculine gender is used to include the feminine gender unless such construction will deny to females the special protection and privileges which they now enjoy for the general welfare.”

52 209 N. W. 475, May, 1926.

53 218 U. S. 611, 1910.

54 179 Wisc. 117, 190 N. W. 822, 1922.

55 See vol. xvii, page 443.

56 271 U. S. 323, 1926. For comment upon this case see the Review, vol. xxi, page 80 Google Scholar.

57 110 So. 801, December, 1926.

58 151 N. E. 411, March, 1926.

59 153 N. E. 667, October, 1926.

60 248 Pac. 235, June, 1926.

61 289 S. W. 1072, October, 1926.

62 250 Pac. 1056, May, 1926.

63 289 S. W. 363, January, 1927.

64 239 U. S. 175, 1915, upholding the New York statute giving citizens a preference in employment on public work.

65 191 U. S. 207, 1903, sustaining a Kansas statute establishing an eight-hour day on public work.

66 206 U. S. 246, 1907, upholding the federal statute restricting hours of labor on work done for the federal government.

67 237 U. S. 589, 1915, upholding a state statute barring fraternities from statesupported universities.

68 239 U. S. 33, 1915, invalidating the Arizona law requiring employers to employ eighty per cent citizens.

69 262 U. S. 390, 1923, invalidating the Nebraska statute forbidding the teaching of foreign languages in the elementary schools.

70 268 U. S. 510, 1925, holding void the Oregon statute making the attendance of children at public schools compulsory.

71 269 U. S. 385, 1926.

72 289 S. W. 838, December, 1926.

73 Fevold v. Board of Supervisors, 210 N. W. 139, September, 1926.

74 Walz v. Dawson, 209 N. W. 177, June, 1926, citing Cunnins v. Reading School District, 198 U. S. 458, 1905.

75 Pizzutti v. Wuchter, 134 Atl. 727, October, 1926. See also Pawloski v. Hess, 250 Mass. 22, 144 N. E. 760, 1924.

76 Minot Special School District No. 1 v. Olsness, 208 N. W. 968, February, 1926.

77 Dalrymple v. Sevcik, 251 Pac. 134, November, 1926.

78 State v. Rose, 132 Atl. 864, February, 1926.

79 249 Pac. 1016, August, 1926.

80 248 Pac. 225, July, 1926.

81 134 Atl. 409, June, 1926.

82 287 S. W. 262, October, 1926.

83 242 U. S. 526, 1917.

84 153 N.E. 884, November, 1926.

85 152 N. E. 461, May, 1926.

85a 245 Pac. 447, February, 1926.

86 Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178, 1925; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35, 1910.

87 251 Pac. 875, January, 1927.

88 249 Pac. 168, September, 1926.

89 246 Pac. 1024, May, 1926.

90 131 Atl. 694, June, 1926.

91 247 Pac. 332, June, 1926.

92 210 N. W. 604, October, 1926.

93 133 Atl. 451, May, 1926.

94 267 U. S. 307, 1925, commented upon in the Review, vol. xx, page 105 Google Scholar.

95 210 N. W. 492, October, 1926.

96 286 S. W. 489, June, 1926.

97 269 U. S. 514, 1926, commented upon in the Review, vol. xxi, page 74 Google Scholar.

98 133 Atl. 729, May, 1926.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.