There would seem to be but little doubt, judging from the present temper of our people that this amendment will pass, although it will undoubtedly meet with considerable resistance. in certain quarters. The legislature of Georgia has just declined to act upon it on the ground that it was not proposed by two-thirds of the full membership of each house of Congress.

Congress is still in session as I write and as legislative activity is usually much stimulated in the closing hours of a session, it is difficult to speak with confidence as to the outcome in respect of pending legislation.

Thus far, however, this being a presidential year, and one of the great parties controlling the House of Representatives and the other the Senate, there has been comparatively little legislation of general interest and importance. Possibly politics and supposed political advantage play too large a part in the deliberations of our legislators.

There was one act passed of considerable importance, not merely in its direct effect but in its general influence.

This was the act approved June 19, 1912, limiting the hours of daily service of laborers and mechanics employed upon work done for the United States or for any territory or for the District of Columbia, to eight hours. It is provided, however, that the act shall not apply to contracts for transportation, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for the purchase of supplies by the government, or for such materials as may usually be bought in open market, except armor and armor plate, or to the construction or repair of levees, necessary for protection against floods, etc. It is also provided that the President, by executive order, may waive the provisions and stipulations in this act as to any specific contract during time of war or when war is imminent and, until January 1, 1915, as to any contracts entered into in connection with the construction of the Isthmian Canal. The act goes into effect January 1, 1913.

This endorsement by the government of the freest, most intelligent and most powerful nation in the world of the eight hour day, however limited its scope, is justly entitled to great weight.

It would seem to be a reasonable proposition that with increased efficiency of labor, due to improved machinery and methods and to other causes, which can hardly be indicated in any one compendious phrase, there should be a constant tendency, under economic laws, towards higher wages and shorter hours. of labor.

That there has been some progress in the law in this regard is indicated by the fact that about one hundred years ago it was, by the common law, a criminal conspiracy for workmen to combine to reduce the hours of labor in one day to less than thirteen. 3 Chitty's Criminal Law, 1163.

In this connection, it may be noted that the legislature of Connecticut adopted a somewhat similar statute applying to those in certain trades in mechanical departments of state institutions, securing to them an eight hour day, September 20, 1911; and the pending amendments to the Ohio constitution contain a similar provision.

By act approved May 11, 1912, some changes were made in the Pension Laws providing, among other things, for a service pension for everyone who, during the Civil War, served ninety days or more in the forces of the United States, was honorably discharged and has reached the age of sixty-two years or over.

Section 1004 of the Revised Statutes was amended so as to provide that writs of error returnable to the Supreme Court or a Circuit Court of Appeals may be issued by the clerks of the District Courts as well as by the Clerk of the Supreme Court or of the Circuit Court of Appeals.

An act was also passed to amend Section 118 of the act of March 13, 1911, relating to the judiciary, so as to provide that nothing therein should be construed to prevent a Circuit Judge holding court in the District Court or serving in the Commerce Court, or otherwise, as provided for in other sections of that act. The same act was also amended as to Section 67, by a provision that no person at present holding a position or employment in the Circuit Court should be debarred from similar appointment or employment in the District Court succeeding to such Circuit Court jurisdiction.

Considerable appropriations were made for the relief of sufferers from the recent floods in the great rivers of the country and for protecting the levees on the Mississippi River.

April 9, 1912, an act was passed providing for the establishment in the Department of Commerce and Labor of a Bureau to be known as the Children's Bureau.

It is made the duty of this bureau to investigate and report to the department upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life among all classes and especially to investigate the question of infant mortality, the birth rate, orphanage, juvenile courts, desertion, dangerous occupations, accidents and diseases of children and employment of, and legislation affecting, children in the several states and territories.

This seems to be an important and highly commendable. statute for gathering upon a broad scale data and statistics which will be of great value as a basis for legislation hereafter, either state or federal.

What seems to be a rather trivial subject engaged the attention of our national legislators; and in July the House passed a Senate Bill prohibiting the transportation, between the different states or territories or from foreign countries, of moving picture films representing prize fights. It has not, however, as this address is written, been signed by the President.

This is so purely a matter of local police regulation in its essence, that it seems as if any evil thus sought to be corrected might well be left to be dealt with by the local authorities, where it should be attempted to exhibit such pictures. This is, however, but one of countless illustrations of the manner in which the national government, quite inevitably in many instances, displaces the authority of the state.

There has been no Congressional legislation by way of amendment to the Sherman Anti-trust act of July 1890. There are many who contend with great plausibility that the act ought to be repealed in toto. Certainly this is an age of centralization. This country, through improved means of transportation and communication, is now one country in a sense that was not only

impossible when our government was formed but then quite inconceivable. It is idle in legislation to attempt to resist those unifying influences which operate in every field of human effort. Dr. VanHise, the very able and scholarly President of the great University of Wisconsin, in his recent work upon this subject, has well said:

"Concentration and co-operation in industry in order to secure efficiency is a world-wide movement.

"The United States cannot resist it. If we isolate ourselves and insist upon the subdivision of industry below the highest economic efficiency and do not allow co-operation, we shall be defeated in the world's markets. We cannot adopt an economic system less efficient than our great competitors, Germany, England, France and Austria. Either we must modify our present obsolete laws regarding concentration and co-operation, so as to conform with the world movement, or else fall behind in the race for the world's markets. Concentration and co-operation are conditions imperatively essential for industrial advance; but if we allow concentration and co-operation, there must be control. in order to protect the people. An adequate control is only possible through the administrative commission. Hence concentration, co-operation and control are the key words for a scientific solution of the mighty industrial problem which now confronts this nation."

These views seem to find strong support in one of the minority. reports from the so-called Stanley Committee of the House, lately investigating the United States Steel Corporation. They seem to be sound and rational.

The federal act in question has, in my judgment, accomplished little or nothing useful. Prosecutions and proceedings under it, where successful, have resulted in barren victories with no practical results; and in the nature of things, nothing of permanent advantage ever can be accomplished in a governmental contest against economic law.

I do not intend by this to suggest that there may not be need of some legislation in this field. If there is, it must be of a far different character. It must be by way of regulation and control of combination rather than by prohibition. I believe the best thought and intelligence of the country is well persuaded of the

futility of this act and that it ought to be repealed. In my judgment, such a program would meet with far greater popular support than most of our political leaders seem to suppose.

The Congress has also passed an excise bill levying an annual tax upon all persons, firms and co-partnerships equal to one per cent of net income in excess of $5000. Several amendments were adopted to this bill in the Senate, so that it will probably go to a conference committee composed of members of each House. Whether it will be signed by the President or not it is impossible now to say.

Among the measures now pending in the Senate is House Bill 22,913, relating to the Department of Labor, and House Bill 22,591, relating to procedure in contempt cases.

The former bill provides for a Department of Labor and changes the present Department of Commerce and Labor to a Department of Commerce. It creates an additional cabinet member, the Secretary of Labor, and transfers the CommissionerGeneral of Immigration, the Bureau of Immigration and that whole service and the Bureau of Labor and Commissioner of Labor to the new department thus created. It authorizes the collection and publication of statistics relative to the conditions of labor; provides that the Secretary may act as mediator and appoint commissioners of conciliation in labor disturbances and contains other provisions not necessary now to be referred to.

The bill to regulate procedure in contempt cases is proposed as an amendment to the judicial code. Its essential feature is to provide for trial by jury upon information for contempt, if the person thus charged shall demand a jury, unless the contempt was committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, or is charged to be in disobedience of any lawful writ, process or order entered in any suit brought or prosecuted on behalf of the United States, provided the act charged is of such a character as to constitute also a criminal offence under any statute of the United States or at common law.

There was considerable difference in the Judiciary Committee but the bill passed the House and is now pending before the Senate.