Case Title: Holden v. PIONEER BROADCASTING CO.

Citation: 228 Or. 405, 365 P.2d 845

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1961-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
Reargued September 6, 1961.
Affirmed October 18, 1961.
*406 Philip A. Levin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Rader & Kitson, Portland, and Peterson & Lent, Portland.
James H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezendorf and Wayne Hilliard, Portland.
Before ROSSMAN, J., presiding, and WARNER, PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN and LUSK, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
O'CONNELL, J.
This is an action to recover damages for an alleged libelous statement made by defendants during a television broadcast. The defendant company is the owner of the television station; the individual defendants are the news director and announcer respectively.
The complaint alleges "[t]hat on or about the 30th day of January, 1959, on a certain news broadcast over said television station, Defendants, and each of them, did broadcast and publish a certain photograph of said restaurant operated by Plaintiff and accompanied by words uttered and published by the Grand Jury * * * for the County of Multnomah * * *." The grand jury report referred to a "deplorable situation" involving runaway girls who, it was reported, were *407 being given aid and assistance by the operators of plaintiff's restaurant and that "these girls soon find themselves engaged in prostitution and similar vices." The complaint further alleges that these utterances were false and libelous and that they were made "willfully, maliciously and wrongfully." Special, general and punitive damages were alleged in the complaint. Defendants moved to strike the allegations of general and punitive damages on the ground that the complaint did not allege that defendants intended to defame plaintiff, or that defendants refused to publish a requested retraction of a non-intentional libel, the pleading and proof of which are conditions precedent to recovery of such damages under ORS 30.155 to 30.175. The trial court granted defendants' motion and, plaintiff failing to plead further, judgment was entered for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.
1. The statutes material to this appeal are as follows:
We construe ORS 30.155-30.175 as requiring plaintiff to plead and prove, as a condition precedent to recovery, defendants' intent to defame or, in the absence of such intent, the failure to retract upon demand. Hall v. Kelly, 61 Ga App 694, 7 SE2d 290 (1940); Frye, Libel and Slander  Damages  Constitutionality of Statute Limiting Recovery of General Damages in Libel Actions, 36 Or L Rev 70, 77 (1956). Cf., Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n. v. Anderson Food Markets, Inc., 160 Or 646, 87 P2d 206 (1939); Smith v. Laflar, 137 Or 230, 2 P2d 18 (1931); Annotation, 130 ALR 440 (1941). We also construe the statute to be applicable to actions brought against the individual agents and employees of the owner or operator of the designated types of news media, if the defamatory publication is made in the course of the employment. Pridonoff v. Balokovich, 36 Cal2d 788, 228 P2d 6 (1951).
2. Plaintiff contends that the foregoing statutes, in purporting to eliminate the right of a defamed person to recover general damages for an inadvertent libel when a retraction is made, are unconstitutional under Article I, §§ 8, 10, and 20 of the Oregon Constitution,[1] and under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution.
*410 The constitutionality of statutes of a similar nature has been passed upon in other states. In a majority of the cases in which the question has been raised the courts have held, or stated in dicta, that the denial of the remedy of general damages for defamation is unconstitutional. The contrary view is taken in Allen v. Pioneer Press Co., 40 Minn 117, 41 NW 936 (1889) and Werner v. Southern California Associated Newspapers, 35 Cal2d 121, 216 P2d 825, 13 ALR2d 277 (1950), appeal dismissed, 340 US 910, 71 S Ct 290, 95 L Ed 657 (1951). The cases are collected in 13 ALR2d 277.
The retraction statutes in the several states vary in the extent to which they remove the defamed person's remedy,[2] but the constitutional attack upon these statutes has been essentially the same as that urged by plaintiff in the case at bar, it being contended that the denial of a remedy by way of general damages is repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment and repugnant to the sections of the state constitutions declaring that persons abusing the right of freedom of expression shall be responsible (e.g., Art. I, § 8, Oregon Constitution) and repugnant to the sections guaranteeing a remedy for defamation (e.g., Art. I, § 10, Oregon Constitution).
Plaintiff's central point of attack is based upon the guarantee in Art. I, § 10, Oregon Constitution, that "every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property or reputation." It is contended that retraction is not a substitute for the remedy of general damages and that, therefore, the constitution is violated. This and the other constitutional *411 objections raised by plaintiff are carefully analyzed in two excellent opinions; one by Mr. Justice Traynor in Werner v. Southern California Associated Newspapers, supra, and the other by Mr. Justice Mitchell in Allen v. Pioneer Press Co., supra. Although the statutes and constitutional provisions dealt with in the Werner and Allen cases are not precisely the same as ours, the basic constitutional problems presented are the same.[3] We agree with the courts' analysis in these cases and adopt it as dispositive of the case at bar.
It is not necessary to repeat what was there expressed. In the Werner case the court held that the enactment of the California retraction statute (Civil Code § 48a) was the result of a legislative determination and choice based upon the resolution of considerations of certain matters of policy which were within the province of the legislature. The statutory scheme enacted in ORS 30.160-30.170 is the result of similar considerations. Unless it is clear that the legislature exceeded the constitutional bounds within which it has the power to exercise its policy making functions we must hold this legislative choice to be valid.
Were we to hold that the legislature cannot constitutionally modify the remedies available to a person who contends that he has been defamed we would, in effect, freeze the law of defamation in the form in which it existed at the time our constitution was *412 adopted. And, logically, such a holding would congeal the remedies for all actions, whether arising out of the law of defamation or any other area of the law. The effect would be to preclude the legislature from modifying the fault principle in tort law, at least to the extent that it would affect the remedy of a plaintiff. Thus, the legislature would be powerless to effect a change in the law were it to decide that the interests of the state would be better served if the principle of absolute liability as a theory of tort liability in a particular type of case (or in all cases) should be abolished, or if it were to decide that in a particular situation liability should be limited to cases in which defendant intended to cause the harm; in other words, that liability for negligent or ultrahazardous conduct would be abrogated. In this connection it will be noted that ORS 30.160-30.170, in effect, simply changes the law of defamation, as it relates to a certain class of persons, by eliminating absolute liability and liability for negligence in preparing and publishing a defamatory statement (unless defendant refuses to retract). Liability is restricted to cases of intentional conduct where the defendant intends to defame the plaintiff. We repeat, if the legislature cannot modify the fault principle in defamation cases it cannot modify it in other areas of tort liability. To require such a conclusion would impose a stricture upon our law which could not have been contemplated in the adoption of our constitution.
In the past this court has recognized that the legislature may limit the remedy previously available to one injured by a tort-feasor. We have held that the legislature can take away the remedy for negligent injury in actions brought by an automobile guest against his host. Perozzi v. Ganiere, 149 Or 330, 40 *413 P2d 1009 (1935). The same result obtains under the federal constitution, Silver v. Silver, 280 US 117, 50 S Ct 57, 74 L Ed 221, 65 ALR 939 (1929).
In the latter case the court said that "the Constitution does not forbid the creation of new rights, or the abolition of old ones recognized by the common law, to attain a permissible legislative object." (280 US 122). Article I, § 10 of the Oregon Constitution was similarly construed in Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or 213, 88 P2d 808 (1939). In that case the court sustained a charter provision exempting the city from damage or loss to a person or property suffered by reason of the defective condition of any sidewalk, as against a claim that the charter provision contravened Article I, § 10. A remedy was reserved against the negligent city officer and the property owner. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice ROSSMAN, said:
See also, Smith v. Smith, 205 Or 286, 287 P2d 572 (1955).
The plaintiff argues that guest statutes and other statutes restricting or wholly abrogating remedies in certain types of cases (alienation of affection, seduction, breach of contract to marry) deal with the remedies of persons who have the attributes of a volunteer *414 and, therefore, such statutes can be distinguished from legislation such as ORS 30.160-30.170 where the person suing has not chosen to expose himself to the harm visited upon him. The distinction is not substantial in this context. We cannot believe that the constitutional provisions relied upon were intended to preclude legislative change in tort remedies unless the injured person was in some sense a "volunteer." If there is substance in the suggested distinction, there is no reason to conclude that the legislature did not weigh it when considering the advisability of enacting ORS 30.160-30.170.
If the legislature can limit a person's remedy to cases in which there has been an intentional defamation, which we believe that it can, then of course it can take a less drastic step and absolve a defendant from liability for general damages resulting from the non-intentional preparation and publication of harmful statements, upon the condition that he publish a requested retraction.
Assuming that the legislature does not have the power to deprive a person of an existing remedy, it would be conceded by plaintiff that the form of the remedy could be changed if the substitute was a substantial equivalent of that which was taken. But plaintiff argues that a remedy by way of retraction is not the substantial equivalent of money damages. The contrary view has been taken by others. In Allen v. Pioneer Press Co., 40 Minn 117, 41 NW 936, 938 (1889), the court said:
It is argued that our constitution, in preserving remedies through "due course of law," assures the injured person a remedy by court action if he should elect to pursue it and that, therefore, the constitution renders invalid the remedy by way of retraction even though it be conceded that such a remedy is more effective than a judgment for damages in assuaging the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This puts a stringent interpretation on Art. I, § 10. Conceding, for the purpose of answering this point, that retraction is not a remedy by "due course of law," the fact remains that the injured plaintiff does have a remedy by "due course of law" under ORS 30.155-30.160 if he is intentionally defamed. Unless it can be said that liability for injury to reputation resulting from negligent conduct or from conduct wholly without fault must be preserved under our constitution, there is no need to inquire whether retraction is an adequate remedy; there would be a remedy by due course of law available to those who are intentionally defamed, and the right of retraction would simply be an additional remedy which the legislature could provide or withhold as it deems wise. But even if the right to retraction was the sole remedy available to a person defamed, that remedy would be by due course of law. The term "due course of law" need not be given a limited meaning, requiring some form of judicial procedure to test the effectiveness *416 of the retraction in rehabilitating the plaintiff's reputation in a particular case.
Implicit in the argument that court surveillance must be available to assess damages is the assumption that, whereas the remedy by way of retraction may prove inadequate in a particular case, the remedy in the form of money damages can be adjusted by a judicial tribunal to equate the dollar recovery to the harm suffered by the person defamed. The harm to a plaintiff is likely to be irreparable either by way of money recovery or through retraction. It is a pure speculation to say that the one remedy is more reparable than the other. As already indicated, there is a respectable view that retraction is a more effective remedy than a judgment for money damages. The legislature may have arrived at the same conclusion in substituting retraction for general damages. The legislature may also have considered that in each case the benefit to the plaintiff from a retraction would be equated to the harm as closely as money damages fixed by a court. It cannot be said that the legislature had no foundation for concluding that retraction was an adequate substitute for general damages.
There are also other policy considerations involved in the choice. In Werner v. Southern California Associated Newspapers, supra, 35 Cal2d at 126, the court said:
We hold that ORS 30.150 through 30.175 does not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of the remedy for defamation.
Plaintiff's argument that the retraction statute creates an unlawful classification in violation of the equal protection clauses of the federal and the Oregon constitutions is adequately answered in the Werner case.
3. Plaintiff next contends that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion to strike from plaintiff's complaint the allegations relating to punitive damages.
Defendants' argue that the trial court's order can be sustained on either one of two grounds: (1) that the Oregon retraction statutes (ORS 30.150 to 30.175) contain no mention of punitive damages, which, it is argued, reflects the legislative design to eliminate the doctrine of punitive damages from this class of cases; or (2) that, conceding that the statutes do not bar the recovery of punitive damages in the proper case, the complaint in the instant case did not contain sufficient allegations to sustain a recovery of punitive damages.
We are of the opinion that defendants' second ground is well taken. It is not necessary, therefore, to *418 decide whether our retraction statutes permit the recovery of punitive damages. The allegations in the complaint do not purport to charge defendants with the intent to defame plaintiff. The recitation that the "utterances and publication were made by defendants willfully, maliciously and wrongfully" is not to be construed as an allegation that defendants knew that the charges were false or that defendants were motivated by ill will in making the alleged defamatory statement. The allegation that the statement was made "willfully, maliciously and wrongfully" is a mere conclusion of the pleader. The allegation is not sufficient to charge malice in fact.[4]
4. One point relied upon in the dissent requires comment. The dissent argues that the deprivation of the remedy in the present case is as objectionable from a constitutional standpoint as legislation purporting to fix a certain price per acre as "just compensation" in eminent domain cases. The analogy is not apposite. Certainly it would be beyond the constitutional power of the legislature to fix a single recovery in dollars for all parcels of land condemned irrespective of the value of each parcel. But the damage resulting from the taking of property is admittedly a money damage and obviously the recovery must be measured in each case according to a certain number of dollars. The harm for which "general damages" purports to be the remedy in defamation cases is of a different sort. By definition "general damages" as distinct from "special damages" are those which are not measurable by proof of specific pecuniary loss. The remedy of general damages purports to compensate the plaintiff for a harm *419 to his reputation  a harm which is not measurable in a money loss and which is not mitigated by a money judgment except to the extent that the entry of the judgment communicates the message that the words printed were false. The remedy afforded through retraction would seem to come closer to providing an effective means of repairing the harm resulting from the defamation. There is no comparable available remedy in eminent domain cases because there is no legally protected interest in the landowner other than the pecuniary interest represented by the market value of the land. The condemnee has no right to regain his land. Compensation, not reparation, is the function of condemnation awards; from the nature of such cases it is impossible to restore the status quo ante. But in defamation cases there is a choice of remedies and it is not for the courts to decree that the defamer must "purchase" the reputation of his victim to the extent of the harm which the defamer has caused him (assuming that it could be ascertained) rather than make reparation by way of publishing a satisfactory retraction. Retraction being an available and apparently effective remedy in defamation cases, it was within the power of the legislature to provide for its use. It would be reasonable for the legislature to assume that the greater the libel the greater the effect that a retraction would have in rehabilitating the plaintiff. Thus the remedy automatically adjusts itself to the harm. The fact that such remedy or such adjustment is not perfect does not prohibit the legislature from making it the exclusive remedy in the class of cases covered by the statute. If the legislatively designed remedy is an effective remedy, there is nothing in the constitution requiring that the guaranty of a "remedy" by "due course of law" for injuries to reputation *420 shall take the form of a judicial adjustment of the remedy in each case.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
GOODWIN, J., dissenting.
The majority holds that ORS 30.155 through 30.175 is consistent with Article I, § 10, Oregon Constitution. I cannot agree.
Constitutional commentators of all persuasions grant that written constitutions having such sections are intended to place the rights of the individual beyond invasion by temporary parliamentary majorities. 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th ed, 1927) 733-738; Griffin v. Mixon, 38 Miss 424; Dorman v. The State, 34 Ala 216; Hotchkiss v. Porter, 30 Conn 414; Park v. Free Press Co., 72 Mich 560, 40 NW 731, 1 LRA 599.
The supremacy of the constitution, as law, and not merely as good advice, has been forcefully underscored in our own cases:
As Judge Deady inquired in Eastman v. County of Clackamas, 32 F 24 (D Or, 1887), quoted by this court in Theiler v. Tillamook County, 75 Or 214, 146 P 828, and in Stewart v. Houk et al, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 272 P 893, 61 ALR 1236:
The Oregon retraction statute abolishes general damages except in cases of proven malice or failure to retract after request. The statute leaves the defamed no remedy other than retraction for a negligent destruction of reputation.
The challenged legislative scheme requires the plaintiff to give notice within 20 days of knowledge of his grievance. Thereafter, the option is with the defendant either to retract or be sued. The plaintiff has a "remedy in due course of law" in the sense that the law gives the plaintiff a day in court, but only if the defendant refuses to retract.
Prior to the enactment of the challenged statute, the decisions of this court recognized the general rule that, where a publication is libelous per se, general damages will be presumed as a consequence of publication. Grubb v. Johnson et al., 205 Or 624, 289 P2d *422 1067; Marr et al. v. Putnam et al., 196 Or 1, 246 P2d 509; Peck v. Coos Bay Times Pub. Co. et al., 122 Or 408, 259 P 307; Barnett v. Phelps, 97 Or 242, 191 P 502, 11 ALR 663; 33 Am Jur, Libel and Slander 222, § 243 and 263, § 282; 53 CJS 362, Libel and Slander, § 239. Special damages, where recoverable, depend upon pleadings and proof. DeLashmitt v. Journal Pub. Co., 166 Or 650, 114 P2d 1018, 135 ALR 1175. And see McCormick, Damages (1935) 421-425.
There is no question of the authority of the legislature to experiment with common-law remedies. Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or 213, 88 P2d 808; Perozzi v. Ganiere, 149 Or 330, 40 P2d 1009; Mattson v. Astoria, supra. In the Perozzi case, we quoted from the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Silver v. Silver, 280 US 117, 122, 50 S Ct 57, 74 L Ed 221, 65 ALR 939:
I would not depart from this rule. It is only a truism to add that in changing remedies the legislature must do so in such a way as to leave intact the substantial rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Remedy for injury to reputation, protected by Article I, § 10, must be a real and substantial remedy, not merely a colorable one, Mattson v. Astoria, supra, West v. Jaloff, supra, so that the rights guaranteed by the constitution are not merely false promises. A substantial remedy is one in which the law, as best it can, either restores the status quo or compensates the injured party for the loss. In some situations there are equitable remedies. In others damages are *423 the pecuniary consequences which the law imposes for the breach of a duty or the violation of a right. Deane v. Willamette Bridge Co., 22 Or 167, 172, 29 P 440, 15 LRA 614. Damages may include mental, as well as physical, suffering. Fehely v. Senders, 170 Or 457, 135 P2d 283, 145 ALR 1092.
Reasonable minds might well disagree on the efficiency or desirability of a retraction in comparison with money damages. See Note, 69 Harv L Rev 877, 940. I agree that for some defamed persons, sincerely interested in vindication, a retraction might be an even better remedy than some trifling verdict. It may be assumed equally that for other defamed persons a retraction would do little good, possibly would compound the harm, and only rarely would reach the same public reached by the original defamation. See Morris, Inadvertent Newspaper Libel and Retraction, 32 Ill L Rev 36. However, such considerations are beside the mark unless the remedy afforded by the challenged statute is a remedy at law as demanded by the constitution.
The meaning of due course of law was explained by Daniel Webster in his celebrated argument in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US (4 Wheaton) 518, 581, 4 L Ed 629:
*424 The principles found in the Dartmouth College case are relied upon in Hanson v. Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, 75 P 1041, 64 LRA 790. And see the discussion in 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, supra, 733-741, and Griffin v. Mixon, 38 Miss 424, supra.
The retraction statute affords the plaintiff no individual hearing or trial to determine the adequacy of a remedy in any case. Whether the retraction has restored a reputation or further beclouded it remains a mystery. The "remedy" rather operates automatically to close the doors of the court. The legislature has arbitrarily declared that a decision to retract, rendered by the tort-feasor, shall be the exclusive remedy. The retraction is not "given" by the statute; it is merely converted from a defense in mitigation to a defense in bar.
It is settled that the legislature may not declare a certain price per acre to be "just compensation" for a massive taking of land in divers ownership under eminent domain. To do so would deny the individual owner a trial to determine just compensation for the loss of his specific property. E.g., Hood River L. Co. v. Wasco County, 35 Or 498, 57 P 1017; Branson v. Gee, 25 Or 462, 36 P 527, 24 LRA 355; Bragg v. Weaver, 251 US 57, 40 S Ct 62, 64 L Ed 135; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 US 557, 18 S Ct 445, 42 L Ed 853. See 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, supra, 743, 758, 1207; 1 Davis, Administrative Law 420, § 7.04.
Similarly, the legislature can not declare that retraction shall be the exclusive remedy for the loss of the constitutionally protected interest in one's reputation. Due course of law requires an individual hearing to determine whether retraction has in fact restored the plaintiff's reputation or merely aggravated the *425 wrong. The statute is a legislative judgment that the plaintiff has been made whole. But the constitution is speaking of personal rights and not of fungible goods. The ancient rule that there must be a day in court has not been abrogated by the fact that the law does not guarantee that any given judgment can be collected on execution. Hanson v. Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, supra.
As will be seen, the majority is justified in relying upon only one case which has passed upon the constitutionality of a similar statute. Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, 35 Cal2d 121, 216 P2d 825, 13 ALR2d 252, appeal dismissed 340 US 910, 71 S Ct 290, 95 L Ed 657. Before discussing that decision, it may be instructive to consult the authorities elsewhere.
In Moore v. Stevenson, 27 Conn 14, the statute provided "[t]hat in every action for an alleged libel, the defendant may give proof of intention; and unless the plaintiff shall prove malice in fact, he shall recover nothing but his actual damage proved and specially alleged in the declaration." Connecticut Public Laws 1855, ch LXXVII. The court construed "actual damage" to mean special damages, without recovery for general loss of reputation. It then held, in order to save the constitutionality of the statute, that "malice" would have to include negligence as well as any wrongful state of mind. To the same effect is Hotchkiss v. Porter, 30 Conn 414, supra. Our statute does not admit of such a construction in order to save it.
Like the court in Hotchkiss v. Porter, the Michigan Supreme Court in Park v. Free Press Co., 72 Mich 560, supra, regarded a substantial legal remedy for defamation as one of the fundamentals of civil order. The statute in that case abolished general and punitive *426 damages in actions against newspapers except in cases of actual malice, charges of crime, or request and refusal to retract. The court's conclusion has often been quoted:
The Michigan court chose to reach the constitutional issue even though it alternatively held that the particular libel was excluded from the operation of the statute by the exception for criminal charges. Accord, McGee v. Baumgartner, 121 Mich 287, 80 NW 21.
In Allen v. Pioneer-Press Co., 40 Minn 117, 41 NW 936, the statute required notice to the defendant of the statement claimed to be defamatory, and if the defendant made the statement in good faith and retracted after notice only special damages were allowed. In order to save the constitutionality of the statute, the court interpreted "good faith" to require freedom from all fault, including negligence. Again we find a court making a substantial revision of the statute in order to save it. Professor Morris, in the article cited supra, says these "mangled" retraction statutes have left the common law substantially unchanged. 32 Ill L Rev at 41.
*427 In Hanson v. Krehbiel, 68 Kan 670, supra, the statute barred all but special damages in cases of retraction without actual malice. Section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights provided: "All persons, for injuries suffered in person, reputation or property, shall have remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without delay." The court held that under "due course of law" one could no more be deprived of his reputation than of his property by the self-executing mandate of the legislature.
In Osborn v. Leach, 135 NC 628, 47 SE 811, 66 LRA 684, the statute provided that, absent bad faith, unreasonableness, *428 or failure to retract after notice, only "actual damages" could be recovered against a newspaper. Again, in order to preserve the constitutionality of the statute, the court held "actual damages" to include both general and special damages. The court approved Hanson v. Krehbiel, supra, and Park v. Free Press, supra, and concluded that the North Carolina statute would have been unconstitutional if construed to make retraction the exclusive remedy for loss of reputation. Accord, Pentuff v. Park, 194 NC 146, 138 SE 616, 53 ALR 626.
In Post Pub. Co. v. Butler, 137 F 723 (6th Cir, 1905), the statute provided:
The Constitution of Ohio provided:
*429 The Sixth Circuit held that a statute barring recovery for loss of reputation upon unilateral retraction would be unconstitutional, and then construed the statute to bar such recovery only in case of an actual request for retraction. The court thought a request for a retraction would be a waiver of the constitutional right to a trial.
In Neafie v. Hoboken Printing & Pub. Co., 75 NJL 564, 68 A 146, the court stated:
Byers v. Meridian Ptg. Co., 84 Ohio St 408, 95 NE 917, 38 LRA (NS) 913, held unconstitutional a statute apparently barring all but special damages after retraction as denying a remedy by due course of law for injury to reputation.
In Comer v. Age Herald Publishing Co., 151 Ala 613, 44 So 673, 13 LRA (NS) 525, the statute provided that in case of retraction, where there was no proven malice, only "actual damages" could be recovered. In order to save the constitutionality of the statute the court construed "actual damages" to include both general and special damages.
In Ellis v. Brockton Publishing Co., 198 Mass 538, 84 NE 1018, the statute provided:
*431 The court in order to avoid constitutional difficulties construed "actual" to include both general and special damages.
In Meyerle v. Pioneer Pub. Co., 45 ND 568, 178 NW 792, the statute barred all but special damages, absent bad faith, unreasonableness, or failure to retract after notice. The court held that retraction in cases of good faith would avoid punitive damages and mitigate general damages, but would not avoid general damages for such injuries as remained after the retraction. This construction was again made to save the constitutionality of the statute.
In Ross v. Gore, 48 So2d 412 (Florida, 1950), the statute barred all but "actual damages" in cases of retraction where there had been no actual malice. The Florida court, again in order to save the constitutionality of the statute, construed "actual damages" to mean general damages.
This summary of the cases I have found shows that prior to Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, 35 Cal2d 121, supra, none of the many courts called upon to review retraction statutes had held constitutional a statute which made retraction the exclusive remedy for libel. In two states similar statutes do not appear to have been tested in the appellate courts. Baldwin's Kentucky Rev Stat, §§ 411.050 (1955), 411.061 (Cum Supp 1961); Neb Rev Stat 1943 (1959 Cum Supp), § 25-840.01.
In 1950, the California Supreme Court upheld the California statute. California has no constitutional section like our Article I, § 10. The majority opinion, by Traynor, J., is, in many ways, a persuasive argument for parliamentary absolutism. Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, 35 Cal2d 121, supra. It is not likely, therefore, that the California majority *432 would have reached a different result under our constitutional provision. The California majority, like ours, sees the question as one of policy that must be addressed to the legislature rather than to the court. The California majority held that a proper exercise of judicial restraint prevented the court from making a qualitative judgment upon the adequacy of the remedy, and that legislative elimination of a remedy at law invaded no constitutional right. In so holding, however, the California court gave considerable attention to policy arguments of its own. The California majority thought, for example, that the Assembly was moved to eliminate the "evil" of jury trials. Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers, supra; and see Chafee, Possible New Remedies for Errors in the Press, 60 Harv L Rev 1. Such considerations are, of course, matters for legislative resolution within constitutional limits. But expressed constitutional limits should not be ignored. Strong dissenting voices vainly urged California to follow the weight of authority elsewhere. The dissenting justices there suggested that the majority was exercising judicial abdication rather than restraint.
This court has recently reaffirmed the rule that unless we can say that the Legislative Assembly acted contrary to an express constitutional limitation its action is valid. The question of legislative wisdom is not subject to judicial review. State ex rel Overhulse v. Appling, 226 Or 575, 361 P2d 86; Warren v. Marion County et al., 222 Or 307, 327, 353 P2d 257, and cases cited therein. I would not depart from these decisions. However, where the constitution has guaranteed its authors and their successors a remedy, if the legislature thereafter eliminates the only remedy known to the law and substitutes something else, it is a judicial *433 function to resolve a properly presented question whether the substituted remedy is, in fact, a remedy.
The majority says the statute is as proper an exercise of legislative discretion as are the widely accepted automobile-guest statutes, city-sidewalk statutes, workmen's compensation laws, and the so-called heart-balm statutes referred to in the Werner case. The analogy between ORS 30.165 (the retraction statute) and legislation outlawing breach-of-promise-to-marry actions is weakened by the fact that the plaintiff in a libel case seeks to vindicate a constitutional right, and not merely a common-law right. Further, such a plaintiff does not ordinarily have the attributes of a volunteer frequently possessed by plaintiffs laboring under other statutes which substitute, or in certain cases eliminate, common-law remedies. With reference to the automobile-guest statute, this court observed that there was no established rule of common law covering such cases when Article I, § 10, became part of the basic charter. Perozzi v. Ganiere, supra, 149 Or at 347. In the so-called heart-balm statutes, no constitutional rights were involved. I recognize that, in each of the instances mentioned, a proper respect for the prerogatives of the legislative branch of government has compelled the courts to uphold a substitution of a substantial alternative remedy for a common-law cause of action, or the outright elimination of a remedy when to do so violated no constitutional guarantee. Perozzi v. Ganiere, 149 Or 330, supra (guest statute); Noonan v. City of Portland, 161 Or 213, supra (immunity of cities); Evanhoff v. SIAC, 78 Or 503, 154 P 106, Atkinson v. Fairview Dairy Farms, 190 Or 1, 222 P2d 732, and Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lbr. Co., 173 Or 682, 147 P2d 199 (workmen's *434 compensation); Magierowski v. Buckley, 39 NJ Super 534, 121 A2d 749 (New Jersey heart-balm law).
But here the fatal defect is that the legislature has left the victim of an injured reputation no substantial remedy at all. Retraction, even if it reaches the same audience reached by the defamatory matter, does not compensate for the loss for which no proof can be produced, but which the law has traditionally protected by the jury verdict. Legislative objectives, however worthy, do not provide a constitutional basis for sacrificing the plaintiff's right to a hearing. It is no answer to say that juries can not be trusted, nor that rascals might profit from the jury system, nor that any significant number of persons who see one television program will probably see another with its remedial retraction, so there is no harm in denying one a day in court. Due process of law is not so easily ignored.
On the fundamental question here presented, I have found no case which satisfactorily answers the objection expressed in 1888 by the Michigan court when it was considering a statute far less drastic than our own. There the court, after addressing itself to the unreality of a remedy purporting to give only special damages to women whose chastity may have been impugned or to defamed members of ethical professions for the destruction of their practices, considered the shopkeeper. We quote:
Similar expressions are found in the cases I have cited, and in the comments of the reviewers. See Clarence Morris, Inadvertent Newspaper Libel and Retraction, 32 Ill L Rev 36, supra; William Frye, Note, 36 OLR 70. Professor Morris, in his primer on torts, observes that while the Werner decision in California may be a turning point in the law of libel, it is in the wrong direction. Morris, Torts (1953) 297. I am sorry to see Oregon turn the same way.
I would reverse the trial court.
WARNER and SLOAN, JJ., concur in this dissent.
SLOAN, J., dissenting.
I concur in the opinion of Justice GOODWIN. However, because of the importance of the decision, it seems proper to express some additional considerations that must influence a judgment of this consequence. If the judicial policy adopted is to be consistently followed, then this decision will be one of the most far reaching that this court has announced in recent years. The court has adopted the majority opinion in Werner v. Southern California Associated Newspapers, 1950, 35 Cal2d 121, 216 P2d 825, 13 ALR 2d 277. It thereby embraces the most extreme view of judicial deference, if not surrender, to legislative supremacy. It is not the intent of this opinion to attempt to say that only calamity will follow. It is, rather, an attempt to express a differing point of view that may, *436 it is hoped, be of value to those who will later continue to mold the judicial policy of this state.
It is the purpose of this opinion to draw into sharper focus the distinction between judicial review of legislative acts that are within the constitutional limits of legislative power and those acts wherein the legislature abridges the constitutional function of the judiciary. To avoid the tedium of frequent citations and references, I have collected in a footnote[1] much of the material particularly used in preparing this opinion. It is not exhaustive of the literature on the subject, by any means. It has been used because it is the best material found in respect to the historical development of judicial review in the state appellate courts. Although the writing on the work of the Supreme Court is without limit, too little attention has been given to judicial review by appellate courts at *437 the state level. It has been and is necessary to consider the historic background of judicial review as such. However, the problem here is, basically and simply stated, shall the court recognize legislative supremacy even when the legislature is tampering with constitutionally stated rights? When the legislature sees fit to bar a citizen's access to the courts must that legislative determination be treated with the same deference that should and must be extended to an exclusively legislative purpose?
The problem of this particular case will be approached from two directions. One, from the aspect of the protection given by the due course of law provisions of the state and federal constitutions with particular reference to Section 10, Article 1, of our own constitution. And, two, a look at the broader aspects of legislative restraint of judicial function.
It is said that the statute provides a remedy equivalent to that of an action for libel. Even if this assumption were correct, which it is not, the argument is wide of the mark. The test is not to decide if a retraction is equivalent to damages. What must concern us is to decide if the remedy is one accorded by due course of law.
The guarantee of Section 10, Article 1, of the Oregon Constitution that "every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property or reputation" is somewhat unique in the inclusion of the word "reputation." It was not a happenstance use of the word by the framers. The proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, before cited, make it clear that the use of the word was deliberate. It is inferable, to say the least, that by this means the framers wrote into the constitution a cause of action for libel as they knew that cause *438 of action to then exist. Other provisions were considered at the convention which would have limited a cause of action for libel but these failed of adoption. The convention delegates included able lawyers. It cannot be assumed that they acted with lack of understanding. The proceedings demonstrate that the cause of action was not only deemed essential for the protection of individual citizens, but this, together with the provisions of Section 8, Article 1, were to provide required restrictions upon the otherwise absolute freedom of the press. The proceedings available to us may not be conclusive but they are not to be overlooked in deciding if the legislature can nullify that specific command of the constitution.
In the now familiar case of Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 1920, 253 US 287, 40 S Ct 527, 64 L Ed 908, it was held that in a rate case "if the owner claims confiscation of his property will result, the State must provide for submitting that issue to a judicial tribunal for determination upon its own independent judgment as to both law and facts; otherwise the order is void because in conflict with the due process clause, Fourteenth Amendment." 64 L Ed 914. Ever since that decision was read, together with the dissent of Justice Brandeis, the holding that the court must exercise "independent judgment" as to both law and facts has been an irritant that has created much agitation.
However, the compulsion for judicial due process upon an allegation of confiscation has never been denied or modified. Are we then to hold that confiscation of property holds some higher right than confiscation of reputation? Particularly, when by our own constitution reputation is to be protected equally with property. By what right does the legislature or *439 this court attempt to assess the value of property as entitled to a different degree of protection than injury to person or reputation? If the legislature were to permit the Highway Department to take property and rule that the taker would be the sole judge of the value thereof would this court sustain such a law? Certainly, it would not go so far. Yet by some unexplained alchemy the value of reputation is now degraded to second rate status in the constitutionally protected values. Justice Brandeis has recognized that the legislative function in the form of administrative action, is not judicial due process. In Ng Fung Ho v. White, 1922, 259 US 276, 284, 285, 42 S Ct 492, 495, 66 L Ed 938, he said:
Although in some instances due process may be done without benefit of the judicial robe, it has not been held that constitutionally protected rights can be taken other than by judicial process.
It is said, however, that the above comparison to legislative condemnation of property is inapposite because the only measure of damages for taking property is money. And, therefore, the amount of money must be decided by judicial due process. That is not the question. The question is: Who will decide how much money value is lost, if any, by the taking of property or by the taking of reputation? The majority hold that the legislature can predetermine that reputation *440 never has money value. If the legislature can, as a matter of "policy," decide that the taking of reputation can never have any money value then what other constitutional restriction can be found that precludes it from legislating a policy that land in this state, taken negligently or by force of law, shall never exceed the value of $100 per acre? Or $5 an acre? The only difference between such a statute and the one we consider is the historically instinctive notion that damage to or the taking of land has some precise measurable value and that damage to reputation or to the person does not. A review of the evidence in any condemnation or tax case should dispel that ingrained instinct which lingers with land.
In the matter of fact the entire premise of the majority decision in this case is based upon the assumption that loss of reputation; no matter how negligently or recklessly taken, can never result in monetary loss. It is assumed that loss of reputation can only be compensated for by informing those who choose to notice that the wrongdoer was mistaken. The assumption that reputation has no money value is contrary to every precept we are taught from childhood. If a more practical example is desired, ask any reformed ex-convict seeking employment. Ask any professional man whose sole worth in life is his reputation. Ask any advertiser who spends $10 a year or $10,000,000 establishing the reputation of his product or service.
The problem is not whether legislatively fixed compensation for loss of land or retraction for loss of reputation is the equivalent of judicially determined rights. The question is: Does it meet the requirements of the constitution?
It is said that the cases sustaining the guest statutes *441 and workmen's compensation acts in the several states support the power of the legislatures to pass the act in question. At least in Oregon, the cases do not support that conclusion. The first guest act which attempted to abolish the cause of action altogether was held unconstitutional. Stewart v. Houk, 1928, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 272 P 893, 61 ALR 1236. The Workmen's Compensation Act of this state does not attempt to deny judicial process.
A legislative declaration of policy is not an adequate substitute for due process.
The second approach is directed at the conflict which has, and does, exist between the exercise of judicial versus legislative function. Reference to some of the works cited at the outset will disclose that, historically and now, this has been a conflict of many participants, of unending duration and has occurred on both the federal and state fields of contest. It is interesting, if not significant, to note that this debate started with decisions of some of the state courts before the federal constitution was adopted.[2]Marbury v. Madison, 1803, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L Ed 60, was not the original sin that fomented charges of the "usurpation" of power. The debate as to the extent of judicial review began before then and has never stopped at either the state or federal level.
The Federal Supreme Court has been attacked by state righters when that court was dominated by federalists. It has been under equally strong attack by the federalists when it has been dominated by the state righters. The most recent all out attack, in 1937, is still within the memory of most of us. In an earlier *442 time some of the state courts withstood similar attacks. In more recent times the attacks upon state courts have subsided or ceased. But that is not because the state courts have relinquished any of their power to the legislative process. In fact the whole struggle that at many times has engaged the active, if not violent, attention of the whole people and has been fought by men and groups of the strongest political power can, thus far, lead to but one inescapable conclusion: The people, from colonial days to now, have never approved nor tolerated any restriction of the fundamental exercise of judicial power. Every attempt to circumscribe or limit the power, no matter by what force it has been agitated, has been consumed by the strength of public opinion. All attempts, save one, to amend the federal constitution so as to restrict the Supreme Court has failed. The Eleventh Amendment restrained actions against a state. Every other amendment that touched judicial power, enlarged it.
Every existing state constitution was adopted after questions of the extent of judicial power had several times erupted. The men who framed and the people who adopted the state constitutions were much aware that, unless restrained by edict of the constitutions they were adopting, the courts would continue to exercise that power. Nevertheless, not one state constitution has deprived its courts of the power of judicial review. Various forms of restraint have been suggested, and vigorously supported by strong political forces; few have been adopted by any state. To the contrary every state constitution has imposed many restrictions on the power of the legislature.
What has just been said may be considered academic to the question at hand. Not so, if it is given the concept intended.
*443 Judicial power is not a handmaiden zealously locked in the unapproachable archives of the courthouse. It is not a power beneficial to the judge or that permits him any unbridled authority over the lives and well being of the people. It is the power the people have permitted to remain in the judges to protect them from executive or legislative encroachment. It is the power, I believe, the people wanted exercised in just such a case as this. The instant statute, the impact of which was unknown to those who would someday be deprived of rights, is the very kind of legislation for which the power of judicial review was retained.
What people could possibly have been present to resist the forces that induced the legislature to enact the statute in question? What libeled person-to-be could anticipate that as a result of this legislative action his access to a court would be barred to him? Few, if any, of the citizens of this state would have been aware that a tampering with constitutional rights was in progress. Nor is it any answer, as it is said in Werner v. Southern California Associated Newspapers, supra, 35 Cal2d 121, 216 P2d 825, that the restrictions on the legislature is found only in the concerted action of an alert citizenry. The practical reality of the legislative function cannot be dismissed with a platitude. What conceivable group of citizens could possibly counter the pressure of the group that induced the legislature to pass this act. No, the people have placed reliance on the courts to preserve this particular kind of right. For, despite the platitudes, no other protection exists. To me, it is a greater wrong to shun judicial power in this kind of case than to exercise it to the full extent. Our duty to the people is paramount and absolute. It is not to be curtailed by a *444 mistaken sense of judicial obeisance to the legislative mandate.
It has been said:
But, says Green, in their hour of need the meaningless phrases failed the people of France. Green says that those who framed our constitutions were of a different mind than the "statesmen of France." History reveals that those who proposed and urged the adoption of the Bill of Rights to the Federal Constitution anticipated that it would be the courts, not the legislature, that would enforce them. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 6 L Ed2d 1081, decided June 19, 1961.
When our constitution was adopted the people of this state knew that it had been judicial power that had breathed life and force into what would otherwise have been constitutional generalities. It must be *445 for this reason that people, then and since then, have not just tolerated but supported the use of judicial power as it has developed in this nation and state. Witness the amendment to Section 6, Article IV, of the Oregon Constitution adopted in 1952. This amendment placed in this court the power to compel legislative reapportionment. The people then knew that the legislature would continue to ignore the constitutional mandate which had required the legislature to periodically do so.
Nor have either the federal or state courts been reticent in restricting legislative encroachment upon judicial soil. In an early case of Den ex dem Murray v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, 1855, 59 US (18 How) 272, 284, 15 L Ed 372, the court said:
That case has never been overruled. In Crowell v. Benson, 1931, 285 US 22, 56, 57, 52 S Ct 285, 291, 76 L Ed 598, the above was quoted with approval and followed with even stronger language from the pen of Chief Justice Hughes. True, the latter case carries a dissent by Justice Brandeis in which he contended that the judicial power was vested in the general government and not in the inferior federal courts. The dissent emphasizes that a majority of the court thought otherwise. That opinion has not been changed by any decided case. Our own court has said *446 the same thing. West v. Jaloff, 1925, 113 Or 184, 262 P 642, 36 ALR 1391; Stewart v. Houk, supra, 127 Or 589, 271 P 998, 272 P 893. In fact the majority opinion should now openly overrule these and similar cases. It does so by implication.
The court of Arkansas, Indiana and Utah have voided statutes which limited the right of appeal. St. Louis & N.A. Rd. Co. v. Mathis, 1905, 76 Ark 184, 91 SW 763; Ex Parte France, 1911, 176 Ind 72; Patterick v. Carbon Water Conservancy District, et al, 1944, 106 Utah 55, 145 P2d 503. In fact the statistical studies made of the constitutional decisions of the courts of Indiana, Utah and Minnesota, as well as in a study of a group of ten other states,[3] show that high in the subject matter of legislative enactment voided by the highest appellate courts of those states were those affecting the courts.
The deference we should pay to legislative action within the legislative function is not that which should be given to legislation when it limits or denies access to a court for the redress of wrong committed. All too often such attempted restrictions have been *447 for the benefit of the few at the loss of the many. This statute is typical. The courts have, in recent years, with common acquiescence refused to interfere in legislatively decided economic, political and social policies. But the legislature is, and should be, equally bound to refrain from unwisely interfering with a citizen's right to enter the door of a courtroom for supplication and relief. In such an instance the presumption of legislative validity should fail and the burden should be placed on the interests protected by the legislative action to show, by evidence of strong need, the evils which justified the abolition of an established cause of action. This is particularly true when the cause is one recognized in the constitution.
Nor does it follow that if we void this statute it will freeze every cause of action as it existed when the constitution was adopted. The point is that due process, as it exists in the form of an established cause of action should not be abolished unless there is strong evidence that the cause of action has become so corrupted that it results in greater injustice than it does justice. A cause of action, as in this case, should not be abolished to remedy evils that do not exist and cannot be shown to exist.
In the case of Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 1939, 308 US 147, 151, 60 S Ct 146, 84 L Ed 155, the court said:
For it must be remembered that when the legislature abolishes a cause of action to benefit a favored few it must be taken to be because the courts have failed to protect the rights of the few. It is a recognition that the courts have allowed fraud or partiality to warp the course of justice. When the courts sustain the act it is a tacit acknowledgment not only of the failure to dispense justice but also an admission that the courts cannot remedy the wrong, if one exists. If the courts sustain legislative negation of established judicial process by applying only the test of a conceivable rational reason for the legislation, then the way is open for the legislature to nullify any form of judicial due process. If judicial due process is worthy of its keep it should not be so readily surrendered.
Professor Thayer in the first of his Legal Essays (1908) divides constitutional decisions into three general classifications: (P. 33 et seq.)
In respect of the third classification he later says:
Thayer, who was one who would have severely limited judicial review, later contended that the above rule should not apply when state courts were testing state legislation against the federal constitution. His argument was that since an appeal to the Supreme Court could only be taken when the state court sustains the legislation the state court should sustain on any basis at all. Whether this proposed restraint on the state courts was sound is arguable. The major premise was sound. And if that be true then we should test the instant statute against the superior guarantees of rights contained in the federal constitution. As we have before seen, the Supreme Court has been and now is unwilling to surrender constitutionally protected rights of any citizen in favor of legislative encroachment based only on some rationally conceivable legislative declaration of policy.
In the case of Boyd v. United States, 1885, 116 US 616, 6 S Ct 524, 535, 29 L Ed 746, the court said:
This expression was quoted, in part, and approved in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 81 S Ct 1684, supra.
In conclusion may it be said, with the proper deference to those who hold an opposing view, that it has been the strong judges and the strong courts that have transformed constitutional promises into living rights. Rights that can be lost by innocuous nibbling as well as by bold assertion. The concepts that have been preserved until now were not attained nor maintained by judicial surrender.
Benjamin Cardozo from his pallet of language blended the words to color the thoughts I have ineptly endeavored to express:
The judgment should be reversed. I am authorized to say that GOODWIN, J., joins in this dissent.
[1]  "Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right."

"Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation."
"Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."
[2]  See a summary of the various statutes in Note, Developments In the Law of Defamation, 69 Harv L Rev 875, 941 (1956). See also, Leflar, Legal Remedies for Defamation, 6 Ark L Rev 423, 437 (1952).
[3]  The Minnesota statute dealt with in the Allen case required the publisher to prove good faith. This was interpreted to require the publisher to be free from negligence. Thorson v. Albert Lea Publishing Co., 190 Minn 200, 215 NW 177, 90 ALR 1169 (1933). The fact that a retraction statute does not place upon the publisher the burden of proving good faith or freedom from negligence does not, in our opinion, render a retraction statute unconstitutional.

The California statute in question in the Werner case was interpreted as allowing retraction to limit recovery to special damages even where the defamation was malicious or reckless. It is not necessary for us to decide whether we would uphold a statute of this type.
[4]  Glenn v. Gibson, 75 Cal App2d 649, 171 P2d 118 (1946); Jackson v. Underwriters' Report, Inc., 21 Cal App2d 591, 69 P2d 878 (1937); Locke v. Mitchell, 7 Cal2d 599, 61 P2d 922 (1936); Taylor v. Lewis, 132 Cal App 381, 22 P2d 569 (1933). Cf., Butler v. Freyman, 216 Mo App 636, 260 SW 523 (1924).
[1]  Doskow, Historic Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (1935).

Coxe, Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation (1893).
Thayer, Thayer Legal Essays (1908).
Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (1932).
Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today, 12th Ed. (1958).
Carey, The Oregon Constitutional and Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1857 (1926).
Schwartz, The Supreme Court (1957).
Warren, Congress, The Constitution and the Supreme Court (1935).
Dodd, The Problem of State Constitutional Construction, 20 Col L Rev 635, 650, 651 (1920).
Recent Decisions, Constitutional Laws  Presumption of Validity Not Applicable to Statutes Dealing with Civil Liberties, 40 Col L Rev 513, 531, 533, (1940).
Case Note:
Avoidance of Constitutional Issues in Civil Rights Cases, 48 Col L Rev 427 (1948).
Shearer, The Political Utility of Judicial Review, 2 Kan L R 392 (1954).
33 Minn L Rev 390, 392, 393 (1949).
The Supreme Court and Responsible Government 40, No. 1, Nebr L Rev 16 (1960).
Dean, Judicial Review, Judicial Legislation and Judicial Oligarchy, 34 Or L Rev 20 (1954).
Thiele, Jr., Judicial-Self Restraint in New Jersey, 8 Rutgers U L Rev 501 (1954).
Jaffee, The Right to Judicial Review, Part 2, 1958, 71 Harv L R 769.
Field, Unconstitutional Legislation in Minnesota, 35 American Political Science Review 898 (1941).
Field, Unconstitutional Legislation in Indiana, 17 Ind L J 101, (1941).
Hickman, Judicial Review of Legislation in Utah, 4 Utah L Rev 52, (1954).
[2]  Haines, The American Doctrine of Judicial Review, supra, Note 1, p 148 et seq.

Coxe, Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation, supra, Note 1.
[3]  Field, Unconstitutional Legislation in Minnesota, supra 35 American Political Science Review 898.

Field, Unconstitutional Legislation in Indiana, supra, 17 Ind L J 101.
Hickman, Judicial Review of Legislation in Utah, supra, 4 Utah L Rev 52.
Field, Judicial Review of Legislation in Ten Selected States, 1943.
The last cited compilation is not available to us. Our reference to this compilation is found in Hickman's compilation of Utah decisions. He names only nine of the states, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Hickman makes this comparison:
"More important that the number of statutes before the court is the subject matter of the statutes attacked. If all of the statutes attacked since 1896 be considered, the figures for Utah follow closely the data which Professor Field collected for ten related states."
He then presents a table showing that in the ten related states and in Utah, the subject of government was involved in 28 percent of the statutes. Next in numerical order in the ten states was the subject of Courts. For the ten states, the subject was involved in 18 percent of the statutes and in Utah 13 percent, which Utah was fourth in numerical order.