The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-03-11
NOTES or Iron EVEN II.

The New York Mileage Ticket law. enacted py
the Legislature o. 1895. has been declared to
BIZ unconstitutional BY the Court Of Appeal. 80
Tar as II applies to railroad corporations whlch
were in existence at the time OF tts passage.
Its validity - maintained. however, ~ tp'ohA-
rani"s INCORPORATED since Il went into tn'ct.
The statute In terms requires every rall'"dl
corporation operating "A railroad more IMAM wv
, miles long In this state 10 issue miltug" DOCKS
emitting the holder thereof to travel l,oVo
miles Oh such railroad, for which the corpora
ton may charge u sum not to exceed " cents
a mile. The Surremo Court Of the United
States recently condemned a similar act OF tho
Legislature ~ Michigan. requiring the ISSUE OF
l.OJO-mile tickets at the rate II $50 In the
Lower Peninsula ami SO in tho UlIer PENN
sula. on the ground that the statue was an I'M
constitutional Invasion Of the property rights
OF existing railroad com panies. The validity
% our New York law was questioned In two
cases-one against the old New York. Lake
J Erie AMI Western Railroad. the other against
It's successor. the new Erie Railroad Company.
! organized in November. go The opinions
are written lyJudge Edgar ". Cullen OF Brook
Ign. one Of tho new members VI the court. who
demonstrated clearly the power OF the legisla-
turs To In pose requirements on corIoratlon'
% b. formed in the future. which IL may not
impose on those already IN being.
In the ease NJ Osterhou't W. O>te rhou1s
B2 Y. Supplement. 520l tho Justices of tho
Appellate Division of this department have
disagreed most empha,ically a. to tho pro-
per custody OF the young daughters OF a
woman who obtained "A Dakota decree OF
divorce from their father which decree is
not recognized AS valid IN this state
then married another man in New Jersey.
with whom she il now living "a her husband.
A majority Of the court. speaking through
Mr.. Justice Ingraham. evidently think that
the mothers only fault was her mistake in
suppo,ing that the Dakota divorce was ef.
fectual here; and that. inasmuch as her
children are warmly attached 10 her and she has
devoted her life to their welfare. they should
not be removed from her care. even though
she is technically guilty OF a%!ultery under our
law. judge Barrett, on the other hand. writes
q dissenting opinion. in which Presiding JUS
tice Van Erunt concurs, dee airing hat this IL
the first time In tho judicial history Of aryciv.
i,ize country where the custody Of the children
OF the marriage has been denied to the inno-
cent paintiN in II divorce suit aud granted to
the guilty defendant" He regards the reason
Ing in support oi the conclusion Of the MAJOR
iy as moth ne ut a ,pecious and vicious plea
for the laxity Of the marriage relation.
Gov. Hill. writing in the North American
Reri,tc for March on tho needless multlplica-
ton Of statutes. pays a deserved compliment
70 the paper on the tendency Of tie courts to
sustain special lex station which Judge John
Woodward ~ jamestown read IA the n set,ng
OF the SOciaI Sclenc, Association last year, 1t
IL an able presentation OF the question" says
the former Governor and Senator, and l0as
=, Infinite credit to this accom- lished Juris'. In
well-chosen words lie Get rosateS the previous
tendency OF some OF oar courts to sustain
special legislation and urges a rigid
adherence TO the oil l-tashiored doctrine
Of a srict construction of Con-titut onal
! prohibitions against the exercise Of legislative
rover" lie adds that Judg, Woolward.s
| paper can be read with profit by eye'y Jn Ike.
lawyer and student in the country. 1t may ne
observed that no one in this State has made
strongcr stan Iu 'icially against the tendency
he criticIses than Judge Woodward himself,
This is Illustrated ly hi4 opinion in the
Brooklyn Appellate Division in the matter "
Ilenneterger (25 Appellate Division Reports,
PAGE 1914 condemning a highway law. general
In form. but whi'h really could apply only 10
the own Of New Lochel.e; \ majority OF the
Court Of Appeals he'd with. HIM that the legis-
latiOn was uncons t,tutiOnal.
We have received a letter from Mr.. Robert
D. Benedict, the distinguished admiralty law
yer. In reference to the bill hetor" the logts.
| .ature providing for the admission to the New
York bar. without examination o. persons
| already adm tied to the bar in the Federal
! courts in this state ahi who have p%rlctisel
in those courts for a period OF two years,
This measure has been criticised AS ot-
,actlonable on the ground that admission
TO practise in the United state, courts
IS rather easily obtained; but Mr, Bene-
diet says their rules require that the aprlt-
cant shall already be a member OF a Cir
cult or District Court Of the United States
elsewhere. or "a member 81 the New York state
bar. or course the bill could be OF no avail to
the latter class. II must be intended for the
| benefit OF some person or persons admitted 10
| u~rarti,s in the Federal courts here on the
| strength - having been previously admitted
| IN the Federal courts In some other State. III
| New Jersey or Connecticut lawyer moves 20
| NV York and wants to be adml;tc to our
| lnr without examination. ha must show that
he has practisel law in his own state for at
least three years: YET this oliI requires but TWO
ypars' practice 10y those who would CONF IL
| through the Federal bar.
There has been a bitter controversy In Nil
vaukee concerning tho regulation OF street
railway ares in that city, which has Just been
settled by a decision OF the supreme Court OF
Wisconsin. upholding the POWER OF the CITY
Council to regulate the matter. An ordinance
was proposed establishing a four-cent fare
during certain hours Of the day. for FIVE years.
and during all hours OF the day at the cxpira.
ton Of that period. ApprehendIng that IL
would be adopted and approved by tho Mayor,
an equity suit was instituted by som
citizens. who obtained a restraining order
from a Judge Of the SUI erior Court Of MIlwlu-
kee. Acting undeC legal advice and the claim
that their legislative authority could not he in
,er'erei with by the judicial branch Of the Cow
arnment. the city Council a Hoped tia orli-
nance. Proceedings were begun to punish thu
members tor contempt, amt the ra-e as tuscn
10 the Supreme Court, which mas no sustained
In, pbsition Of the tty Council in. nj resrert-.
The corporate privileges W tn which tn" nrdi-
nance deals ar. held not - b" like tundI rr
pr1uprty held in trust tor the citizens and jaN.
pavarl NJ the city. The Legislature granite to
The municipal authorities power 10 regulate
these franchis sea and tho Iower thus delegated
may be- exercised without control by the
courts,
Tit office Of Police Magistrate Ia no s~inecure
In st. Paul. II we may form a fair estimate %