Latest Important Cases American Cases." By N. C. Collier. 76 Central Law Journal 354 (May 16). "It may be thought, therefore, that there is no very great assurance that a compulsory work men's compensation act would be upheld under the due process of law clause of the federal Constitution, and if such legislation of a per missive character may embody all or practically all of the features that a compulsory act should contain and thus escape all assaults upon its constitutionality, it would be a sort of bigotry to insist upon the compulsory idea. It is un doubtedly true that five of the six courts, which have spoken, would sustain an optional law, and it is not certain that more than two of them would have sustained a compulsory law. In
deed, two of them sustaining an optional law have strongly intimated they would not." Women. "Women and the Legal Profession." By Holford Knight. Contemporary Review, v. 103, p. 689 (May). "My general answer, therefore, to this series of objections is, that the alleged physical dis abilities are exaggerated, also negatived by the experience of daily life; that the defects of tem perament and mind will either be corrected by training and education, or prevent the receipt of legal work (as men in like case have found); and that the fears as to an interference with the course of justice will dissolve as experience of woman in her new sphere is gained."
Latest Important Bankruptcy. Life Insurance Policies ofBank rupt — Trustee Entitled only to Cash Surrender Value. U. S. In a number of recent cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that under sub-division 5 of section 70a of the Bankruptcy Act, the trustee is entitled only to the cash surrender value of the bankrupt's policies of insurance at the date of the filing of the petition. Hence, if a bankrupt dies any time after the petition is filed, the trustee has no interest in the proceeds of the policy beyond its surrender value at the date of the filing of the petition. Burlingham v. Crouse, Oct. term no. 184 (L. ed. adv. sheets no 13, p. 564), Everett v. Judson, Oct. term no. 595 (L. ed. adv. sheets no. 13, p. 568), Andrews v. Partridge, Oct. term no. 496 (L. ed. adv. sheets no. 13, p. 570). Contempt. Procedure to Punish for Con tempt — Excessive Punishment. D. C. In In reGompers, decided May 5, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia reversed the sentences imposed upon the appellants by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding them excessive, and sentenced the re spondent Gompers to thirty days in jail and the respondents Mitchell and Morrison to pay a fine of S500 each. (Washington Law Reporter, May 9') The Court (Van Orsdel, J.) reviewed the controversy from its inception in 1907 in an extended opinion, and concluded: — "The differences which necessitated the in junction have been settled. The sole purpose of punishment, therefore, is to give reasonable
assurance that respondents will in the future respect the authority of the courts. While the injunction was issued to restrain the most subtle and far-reaching conspiracy to boycott that has come to our attention, the boycott had ceased and the necessity for the injunction no longer existed at the time this case was tried below. A penalty, therefore, which would have been justifiable to prevent further defiance of the order of the court but for the settlement, would now be needless and excessive. Had the court below imposed penalties not greatly in excess of those which we now deem adequate, we would not feel justified in holding that there had been an abuse of discretion. Since, however, the penalties imposed are so unreasonably excessive, and we are called upon to modify the judgments, we prefer to err, if at all, on the side of modera tion. No one, however, can read this record without being convinced that respondent Gom pers has been the chief factor in this contempt; hence, a severer punishment is merited in his case Thethan only in the error cases in of thetherecord other was respondents." found to relate to the excessive punishment imposed. Corporations. Meaning of "Engaged in Busi ness" — Federal Corporation Tax Law. U. S. In McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven R. Co., 228 U. S. 295, decided Apr. 7, the United States Supreme Court held that a railroad com pany which has leased its entire railroad to a company which agrees to operate it and keep it in repair, is not "engaged in business" within the meaning of the federal corporation tax law of 1909, imposing an excise tax on corporations