Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/99

This page needs to be proofread.


The Green Bag

"The federal Constitution forbids the states to enter into agreements with each other with out the consent of Congress; it follows from this that such agreements are possible provided the consent of Congress be obtained. It may be asked why states should not avail themselves of this power to follow the example of the Berne Conventions and agree upon identical legislation regarding certain matters. In the past this course has not been adopted and it is to be feared that it would prove impracticable. For the constitutions of the several states do not recog nize such agreements as having statutory force: the agieement in order to have such force would have to be authorized by the state as well as by the federal Constitution." Workmen's Compensation. "Can the Ger man Workmen's Insurance Law be Adapted to American Conditions?" By P. Tecumseh Sher man. 61 Univ. of Pa. Law Review 67 (Dec.). This is too meaty and important a paper to be briefly summarized, the objections to the German system being presented minutely and concretely under numerous headings, and many objections to the English system being discussed and repelled with even impartiality. "While the German Workmen's Insurance

Law has undoubtedly exerted a material influ ence in improving the contentment and wellbeing of the working classes and thereby in pro moting workmen's efficiency, it does not follow that this result is due to the distinctive features of the Industrial Accident Insurance Law, so that the effect of the German system as a whole would have been any less beneficial had the direct liability for accidents been adopted in stead of compulsory mutual insurance. And it is a tremendous exaggeration to attribute the growth in German efficiency so exclusively to the Workmen's Insurance Law alone, since wide spread vocational training, compulsory military service, an iron discipline and early and wise child labor regulation are considered by many to have been the piincipal factors in bringing about that result. Moreover it is a vital mistake to attribute German industrial efficiency too much to the workmen. German managerial and tech nical efficiency were famous before the work men's insurance laws, and are undoubtedly the ultimate cause of Germany's general efficiency and prosperity. And the more one studies the subject, the less becomes one's admiration for the German Workmen's Insurance Law in com parison with one's admiration for the adminis trative efficiency that has made those cum brous statutes operate successfully."

Latest Important Defamation. Sickness of Wife Resulting from Menial Distress Caused by Publication Actionable per se — Recovery for Loss of Wife's Services. . N. Y. In Garrison v. Sun Printing & Publishing Association, decided by the New York Court of Appeals Dec. 17, it was held that a husband may recover for loss of services of his wife, caused by her sickness resulting from mental distress, which in turn was caused by the defendant's willful and malicious publication concerning her of defamatory words actionable per se. ( N. Y. Law Jour., Jan. 8.) The Court (Hiscock, J.) said : — "It was early established in this state by deci sions which do not appear to have been over ruled or limited that an action to recover for the utterance of defamatory words, not action able in themselves, could not be sustained by proof of mental distress and physical pain suffered by the complainant as a result thereof (Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 N. Y. 54; Wilson v. Goit, 17 N. Y. 442). And the same doctrine seems to have prevailed in England (Alsop v. Alsop, 5 H. & N. 534, 539; Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. of L. cases 577, 592). . . .


"Both the Terwilliger and the Wilson cases took pains to limit their effect to case of defama tory words not actionable in themselves. Their plain intent was to declare that an action of libel or slander involves as its very foundation an injury to character; that where the language complained of is not of such a character that the law presumes an injury, but requires proof of special damages, this requirement cannot be satisfied by simply proving that the plaintiff had been made sick, there being no proof whatever of injury to the character, which involves the effect of the defamatory words on third persons rather than on himself (Hamilton v. Eno, 16 Hun 599, 601). "It will be seen that this reasoning does not apply to a case where the words are action able in themselves, because there the law pre sumes an injury to character which of itself will sustain an action, and proof of mental or physi cal suffering is presented as an element of addi tional or special damages accompanying or result ing from the injury to character thus pre sumed." Landlord and Tenant. Liability of Landlord