NOTES OF RECENT CASES the desires of the voters to elect him could be carried out would be by making the payment themselves, and that this would constitute a con dition to their right to vote not contemplated by the Constitution. As against the plea that blank spaces were provided on the ballots, so that the voters might indicate their choice by writing the name of one whose name was not printed thereon, the court said that while this was possible, it was so impracticable as to be almost valueless. Ref erence is made to the Illinois case of People v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago, 221 Ill. 9, 77 N. E. 321, and to the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Drexel, 105 N. W. 174, in which somewhat similar questions were involved. The law was held invalid. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Peonage.) U. S. Cir. Ct. of App. — The case of Smith v. United States, 157 Fed. Rep. 721, was a prosecution for violation of section 5508 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3712] by conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate a citizen of the United States in the free exercise and enjoy ment of rights and privileges secured by the Con stitution and laws of the United States. It appeared that some of the defendants were owners of large tracts of land in southern Missouri, and that others of them were overseers employed thereon. The evidence showed that they had by fraudulent representations transported a number of negroes to their farms and had there kept them in servitude under the most brutal and shocking conditions. It was claimed on the part of defend ants that the right to freedom from involuntary servitude and slavery was inborn or natural and not one secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, but the court said that while the right might be inborn or natural that fact did not prevent it from being one " secured " by law. All assignments of error by defendants' counsel were overruled and the conviction sustained. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Revocation of Charter of Social Club.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — In Cos mopolitan Club v. Virginia, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the revocation of the charter of a social club, because of its violation of laws relating to sale of liquor, did not constitute an impairment of the contract obligation arising from the issuance of the corporate charter. . It was said that, not withstanding the fact that the charter constituted a contract with the state, it did not authorize the club to disregard the state laws and that on violation of these and misuse of corporate priv ileges, there was full authority for revocation of the charter without conflicting with any provision of the United States Constitution.
329
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (State Rights — Void Act.) U. S. Sup. Ct.— Several months ago interested persons brought action in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota to restrain the attorney general of that state, from enforcing certain laws relating to maximum charges by carriers on the ground that they were unconstitutional. The attorney general insisted that if he should attempt to carry the law into effect it would be, not individually, but by virtue of his office and that the suit was really against the state and consequently beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Judge Lochren, before whom the case was tried, held that it was not an action against the state, that the law was invalid, and enjoined any action looking to its enforcement. Subsequently the attorney general, still maintain ing the correctness of his contention in the injunc tion suit, instituted mandamus proceedings in the state court to compel putting the rates into effect in violation of the order of the federal court. He was thereupon cited for contempt and adjudged guilty. He at once asked for a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court which was denied in the case entitled Ex parle Young, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441. Justice Peckham,' who wrote the majority opinion, reviewed at length the former decisions thought to involve similar questions and said, "The act to be enforced is alleged to be uncon stitutional; and if it be so, the use of the name of the state to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not effect the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the state, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional." CORPORATIONS. (Action by Foreign Corp oration.) N. Y. — The South Bay Co., a foreign corporation doing business in New York and plaintiff in the case of South Bay Co. v. Howey, 83 N. E. Rep. 26, brought action in the Supreme Court of that state on a contract of insurance. Defendant insurance company alleged that plain tiff had not obtained permission to do business in the state and therefore could maintain no action therein. The New York Court of Appeals held this to be a good defense and reversed the judg ment of the lower court to the contrary. This decision is based upon the following pro vision in Sec. 15 of the New York General Corpo ration Law, namely: " No foreign stock corpora tion doing business in this state shall maintain any action in this state upon any contract made by it in this state unless prior to the making of such
