Kansas. University.

Seminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science online

. (page 56 of 62)
Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 56 of 62)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

aids and supplies to the Crown is in the
Commons alone. The second, that al-
though the Lords have exercised the
power of rejecting bills of several descrip-
tions relative to taxation, by negativing
the whole, yet the exercise of that power
by them has not been frequent and is
justly regarded by this House with pecu-
liar jealousy, as affecting the right of the
Commons to grant supplies, and to pro-
vide the ways and means for the service
of the year. The third, that to guard in
the future against an undue exercise of
that power by the Lords, and to secure to
the Commons their rightful control over
taxation and supply, this House has in its
own hands the power to impose and remit
taxes and to frame bills of supply, that
the right of the Commons as to the matter,
measure, or time may be maintained in-

The Commons did not at once reintro-
duce the bill over which the contest arose,
but in the following year the measure was
again presented to the Lords, this time
forming a part of the general appropria-
tion bill, and the Lords did not dare to
tamper with it. ^This explains what was
meant by the Commons in the resolution,
when it is said that it is "always in the
power of the Commons so to frame money
bills so as to make the right of rejection
nugatory." It is simply the custom,
familiar enough to-day, of tacking riders
on to important bills. Such a proceeding
was objected to as early as 1702, when
the Lords resolved "that the annexing
any clause or clauses to a bill of aid or
supply, the matter of which is foreign to
and different from the matter of the said
bill of aid or supply is unparliamentary
and tends to the destruction of the consti-

^ Hansai'd'.s Debates, 3rd Ser., Vol. 1()3, p. fjO.



tution of this government."* Despite
such protests by the Lords, the Commons
have placed riders upon bills whenever
they have feared that a bill which has
seemed to them of great importance,
would be objectionable to the Lords and
would be rejected if presented alone. The
Commons dislike to have the Lords take
any active hand in the grant of supplies,
yet under certain circumstances the Lords
are permitted to amend money bills. In
cases where clauses which have no direct
bearing on the matter of taxation, are
objectionable to the Lords, amendments
are sometimes permitted, but so careful
are the commons of- their privilege that in
agreeing to such amendments, a special
entry f is made in the journal to the effect
that the amendments were "for the pur-
pose of rectifying clerical errors," or
"were merely verbal," or were "in furth-
erance of the intention of the House of

Sometimes also it is expedient to allow
the House of Lords, from their greater
knowledge of the subject under considera-
tion, to originate bills which contain
clauses relative to taxation. On the third
reading of such a bill these clauses are
struck out and the bill is sent to the Com-
mons without them. The Commons then
take the clauses omitted, and print them
in their proper place in red ink, with a
note stating that "they are proposed to
be inserted by committee " and they are
supposed to be in blank until inserted by
a formal motion. The House of Com-
mons is, however, extremely jealous of its
privileges, and a bill coming from the
Lords which contains anything bearing on
taxation is likely to be objected to at any
time. I In fact the power of the Commons

* May, Parliamentary Practice, p. 648.

+ Ibid., p. 643 ff.

:J:For example, June 15, 1860, a bill introduced by
the Lords came up for its second reading in the Com-
■ mons. It provided that persons selling and hawking
goods on Sunday should be fined and the fine paid
over to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police dis-
trict and applied in aid of the expenses of the police.
But an objection was made that a good share of the
expenses of ihe Metropolitan and City Police was
provided for out of the consolidated fund and hence
the bill was one which would lessen the taxation of
Her Majesty's subjects, and so was an invasion of the
rights of the Commons. Hansard's Debates, Srd Ser.,
Vol. 159, p. 539.

over the grant of supply is absolute when-
ever the Commons see fit to exercise their
power and coerce the Lords. The Com-
mons make the grant, the Lords merely
assent to it. The relation between Crown,
Lords and Commons in the matter of
supply is clearly set forth by May. He
says, "The Crown demands money, the
Commons grant it, and the Lords assent
to the grant, but the Commons do not
vote money unless it be required by the
Crown, nor impose or augment taxes un-
less they be necessary for meeting the
supplies which they have voted or are
about to vote, and for supplying general
deficiencies in the revenue. The Crown
has no concern in the nature or distribu-
tion of the taxes, but the foundation of all
parliamentary taxation is its necessity for
the public service as declared by the
Crown through its constitutional advis-
ers. "§ The general principle that the
Commons will not grant supplies unless
they are proposed by the Crown was em-
phasized by a standing order of March 20,
1866,11 "This House will receive no peti-
tion for any sum relating to the public
service, or proceed upon any motion for
a grant or charge upon the public revenue,
whether payable out of the consolidated
fund, or yet of moneys to be provided by
Parliament, but what is recommended
from the Crown. "^ Such a principle is
both a great safeguard** against hasty and
unwise appropriations, and it ensures a
careful balancing of income and expendi-

The importance of the control of taxa-
tion is nowhere more evident than in
England, where the Commons possessing

§ May, Parliamentary Practice, p. 651.

a Hansard's Debates, 3rd Ser., Vol. 223, p. 879.

^Formerly the military estimates were not submit-
ted by the Crown but by a committee of the House of
Commons, the reason probably being the fear of the
Crown over the army. Biit in 1863 this ciistom was
abolished and all estimates are now proposed by the
Crown ministers.

** Yet by means of what are called " abstract resolu
tions" a member of the House can cause the intro-
duction of a bill relating to taxation. A resolution is
presented declai'ing that such a bill ought to be intro-
duced and, if the resolution passes, the ministry will
hardly refuse to introduce the bill thus brought to
their notice. Such resolutions are certainly contrary
to the spirit of the constitution and the standing
order of March 20, 18(56.



this power, have practically the sole gov-
erning body. In the end the control of
the purse brings with it the control of all
matters of legislation. The form of govern-
ment in England, which permits the plans
for legislation to be made by a responsible
ministry, gives to the people an effective
influence upon financial questions, and as
a consequence, upon all questions of pub-

lic interest. The control of the budget
by the people, through their representa-
tives, is the one force which more than
any other secures the maintenance of
constitutional liberty in England, and the
history of the growth of that control is
really identical with the history of the
growth of constitutional liberty.


Land Tenures of the Roman Republic.

9 MY ^ ^^ meeting of the Seminary on
^^^1^ March 17th, the subject for discus-
sion was, "Some of the Forms of Land
Tenure among the Romans." Mr. Bishoff
read a paper on Tenure Previous to the
Gracchan Rogations. He spoke of the
early Romans as distinctly an agricultural
people, when the land owned in common
was known as the Ager Romaims, and
later, as the territory increased by con-
quest, the new land was called Ager Pub-

Citizenship was always a requisite to the
private ownership of land, and the Roman
law always discriminated against the alien;
he was allowed to occupy land only as a
tenant. The patrician class might hold
land in three ways: (i.) Quiritian owner-
ship, by right of citizenship. (2.) Seign-
orial rights, a sort of feudal tenure, and
(3.) by occupying portions of the public
domain by right of possession. Ager Pitb-
licus was the property of the state and
might be disposed of by public auction.

In 486 B.C., the Lex Cassia was passed,
which provided for the survey of public
land and its distribution among the plebi-
ans, and it so excited the people that its
originator, Spurius Cassius, was con-
demned and put to death. In 454 B.C.,
the Lex Licinia was passed, which pro-
hibited any one from occupying more than
e^oo Jugera. The early land laws of Rome
were directed against the landed aristoc-

racy and in favor of the plebeans. The
effect was to break up old parties and
form new ones corresponding to the rich
and poor classes.

Mr. Buchan read a paper discussing the
provisions of the Gracchan Rogations.
These provided that no one should hold
more than five hundred jugera of public
land, with the exception that a father
could hold two hundred and fifty
jugera for each son. It also guaranteed
the permanent possession of this amount
to the occupier and his heirs forever, and
also provided for the payment for im-
provements made upon surrendered land,
and ordered that the land thus surrendered
be divided among the poorer citizens in
lots of thirty jugera each, which must be
used for agricultural purposes.

The law required the appointment of a
commission consisting of three magistrates
to receive and apportion the land and to
determine what was public and what pri-
vate land. This measure led to difficul-
ties and the commission confiscated all
land in question unless the occupier could
prove that his land had never been part of
the Ager publiciis. Under this law the
first public survey of the territory of Rome
was made. It was not without a fierce
struggle .between the patricians and plebe-
ans that this law was passed. The senate
refused to assist the commission in any
way and the commission in turn resorted
to very arbitrary measures to enforce its



decrees. The excitement grew so intense
that when the originator of the law, Tibe-
rius Gracchus, came up for reelection, he
was killed by a mob, but his brother Gaius
carried on the work until it accomplished
its purpose ; however, it was soon virtu-
ally killed through the influence of Scipio.
Mr. Bennett read a paper on The Effects
of the Lex Thoj-ia, passed in 118 B. C.
This law provided that the holders of dis-
puted lands might legally sell it, thus
repealing the restrictions of assignment
made by the Gracchan laws. The effect
of this law was that the smaller land hold-
ers soon sold out to the rich patrician
class and moved to the capital to swell the
ever increasing number of governmental
dependents. A law was then passed by
the patricians to prevent any future gov-
ernmental distribution of land, and im-
posing a tax, vectigalia, upon land holders
for the support of the dependent class,
thus placing a premium on idleness. Pri-
vate property in land, according to this
law, was any part of the Ager Publiciis
occupied previous to the law of 133 B. C.
not to exceed 500 jiige7'a; all assignments
by lot made to Roman citizens ; all public
land which had been used in executing the
lavsj of 133 B. C., in establishing colonies,
etc. All land occupied by Roman citizens
for the purpose of agriculture, not to ex-
ceed thirty jugera, was given in full own-
ership. Pasture land was relieved from
taxation and remained the property of all
those whose land bordered upon it. The
main objects of this law were two: ( i) The
guarantee of full tenure in the land to the
present occupier ; (2) the releasing from
vectigalia of the property of every one.
The long struggle between patrician and
plebean was finally closed. The pristine
vigor of Roman institutions died when the
farmer class was reduced to want and

J. L. Cramer, Reporter.

T the meeting of the Seminary on
2^^ March 24th, the subject for discus-
sion was "Divorce."

Status of Divorce,
by miss radford.

Marriage is a legal contract between
a man and woman and the state. The
question of divorce necessarily grows
out of and is determined by the view
taken of this marriage contract. If mar-
riage is nothing more than a mere legal
contract, then divorce is simply the an-
nulling by law a contract made by law.
But if marriage is more than a mere legal
contract, if it is a second institution of
society then divorce becomes a serious
question. It should be the strictest aim
of legislation to grant a divorce on such
grounds alone as shall not offer a pre-
mium to marital inconstancy, as well as
not to give the slightest encouragement to
ill-assorted or hasty marriages.

The increase in the number of divorces
began about the middle of the present
century, at first only in Connecticut. In
1849 there were 94 cases, in 1850 129;
1854 216; 1864 420; during the next
fifteen years the increase was so rapid
that it averaged one divorce for every ten
marriages. New. Hampshire shows an
increase of 50 per cent, of divorces dur-
ing the last twenty years. In Massachu-
setts there is one divorce for every twenty-
one marriages. In Chicago the relation
is about one to twelve.

Statistics show that all those states with
a large number of churches and schools
have the largest divorce per cent, in pro-
portion to their population and number of
marriages, as for instance in Ohio, 1S80,
with a population of 3,198,062 for 503,-
734 marriages there were 1553 divorces.
In Indiana, with a population of 1,978,-
301, for 373,899 marriages, there were
1200 divorces, while in Georgia, with a
population of 1.542,180, for 291,472
marriages there were only 325 divorces.
This makes a ratio of 77 divorces in Ohio
to 97 in Indiana, to 60 in Georgia. The
reason for this great difference in such
instances is sometimes due to the loose-
ness of the divorce laws, as in the case of
Ohio, but in Indiana the laws are quite as



binding as in Georgia. Then why the
increase of divorce should be so much
greater in Indiana than in Georgia is not
yet explained. Perhaps it may be par-
tially explained by the different classes of
people and different conditions of society
in these two states.

That divorces have increased and mar-
riages decreased during the last twenty
years is certainly true, but there are no
satisfactory statistics to show in what pro-
portion or whether or not one or the other
may be the natural results of a corres-
ponding increase or decrease in the popu-
lation of the United States.

Causes of Divorce,
by miss hardy.

What are the causes of the increasing
number of divorces? Let us review
briefly the causes for which divorce has
been granted among other nations. If a
Hebrew husband for any cause became
dissatisfied he had only to write a bill of
divorcement and give it to his wife.
Among the Greeks divorce was obtained
with little difficulty by simply sending the
wife from his home. Or the wife might
separate herself from her husband. In
the early history of Rome the causes for
which divorce might be obtained were
"violating the law of chastity and drink-
ing wine."

There are in the United States forty-
two causes for absolute divorce and thirty-
two for limited. Absolute divorce may
be obtained in every state of the union
except South Carolina.

The Labor Commissioners report, by
classified causes from 1867 to 1886, shows
the following result. Desertion 126,676
or 38 per cent, of the entire number;
adultery 67,686 or 20 per cent.; cruelty
51,595 or 16 per cent.; drunkenness 13,-
866 or 4 per cent.; neglect to provide
7j95S or less than 3 per cent.; other
causes 60,938; entire number 328,716.
The largest number, 38 per cent., was
obtained for desertion.

The causes for the increasing number
in the western states in the last few years

may be attributed to the class of people
by which these states are settled.

Although we may be able to form a
general idea from reports regarding the
causes of divorce, yet cases of this kind,
touching closely the domestic life of all
concerned, must ever be difficult of inves-

Some Remedies for Divorce.


It is a difficult thing for law to attempt
to regulate the morals of a community.
A body of men make a code and attach
penalties, but the opinions of the majority
of the people must be in its favor before
it can be enforced.

First, therefore, to remedy divorce by
law, public opinion must be so strong in
favor of the law which governs it that
there can be no evading of the law by

Second, it has been proposed that Con-
gress adopt uniform laws in fegard to
marriage and divorce for all the states.

Third, a prohibition of the publication
of the proceedings of divorce courts,
would do much toward elevating the moral
taste of certain classes of people who
find pleasure in such reading.

Fifth, the remedy that embraces many
others is education; not higher education
in an intellectual sense; for this would be
impossible for all, but heart education,
a higher moral development, and love of
country or patriotism. It is sometimes
argued that education of women has
increased rather than diminished the num-
ber of divorces. The answer, I think, is
that woman has not enough education,
instead of having too much.

In conclusion, then, the remedies for
divorce are: Securing a strong and healthy
public opinion that will frown on un-
grounded causes. Suppression of the
reports of divorce courts. Uniform laws
throughout the United States. A reform
in the laws relating to marriage. And
education of heart, mind and body.

Daisy Clark, Reporter.




'^1^0 people need to exercise more wis-
^^ dom in the guidance of their affairs
than do the laboring classes. To accom-
plish what they have undertaken, without
injury to their own cause, requires active
intelligence and sound judgment. To
raise the standard of life of the laborer
and improve his material condition is a
problem of great magnitude, and those
who have undertaken its solution have
learned much in the past and must still be
learners in the future. Not only is it
necessary that the leaders in the great
labor movement should be educated, but
the whole rank and file in the army of
labor must be elevated by the process of
education. Look over the history of the
laboring classes during the last half-cen-
tury and witness the improvement in their
condition, and it will be seen that it is
based on a better intelligence of affairs.
Consider the movements of the organiza-
tions during the past decade, recount their
successes and their failures, and it will be
seen that success has followed intelligence
and sound judgment, and failure has
waited upon ignorance and violence.

Labor has a great cause to-day, that of
the elevation and material prosperity of
the toiling masses. This cause is to be
promoted on the basis of justice and truth
rather than on blind force. While labor
organization's natural developments follow
industrial revolution as essentially as civil
organization follows political revolution,
it must be remembered that no organiza-
tions or institutions can long prevail in a
free country unless founded on the prin-
ciples of truth and justice and conducted
by a wise economy. This has been true
of all political life: it is more essential in
the economic life. Permanent improve-
ment in the industrial life is obtainable
only by the observance of economic laws
and forces.

There are certain things that labor
organizations may not do to forward the
interests of the laboring classes. Their
work is necessarily limited in its activity,
and it is very necessary to know their
limitations. Many things which would
seem a present advantage prove to be an
ultimate detriment. Their cause has
sprung out of industrial revolution. But
they cannot act as political revolutionists
and overthrow and crush their opponents
without destroying their own means of
existence. Industrial revolution has ren-
dered society complex, so that every part
is in some way dependent upon every
other part for support. In the ultimate
there are no dependent classes. But self-
ish and ambitious men, taking advantage
of the power of monopoly, consider their
own immediate wants' and not the final
good of society. This forces others to
unite for their own protection against op-
pression. Consequently we find two
classes warring against each other, whose
ultimate interests are common. This
makes the labor problem exceedingly diffi-
cult to solve. We have capital and labor,
which ought to be equal partners in a
common production and just sharers in
distributed products, frequently working
to each others detriment. If capital
injures labor, it must be the ultimate loser,
while if labor injures capital, labor itself
must suffer indirectly. Herein is the
necessity of intelligence and fair dealing
of both parties in the strife.

Take, for example, the question of
wages. Without discussing the economic
principles that control the rate of wages,
it may be said in general that there is a
point below which wages cannot pass
without injuring the quality of labor to
such a degree as to prove detrimental to


♦Letter sent to the Topeka Labor Day Association.
Sept., 1892.



capital. Wise employers see this, and
try to keep up wages and elevate the con-
dition of the laborer. Again, there is a
maximum point beyond which wages may
not pass without discouraging the invest-
ment of capital, and thus displace labor.
While the wages of the laborer are paid
out of the product of his daily toil, it
takes capital to provide buildings, machin-
ery, and raw material for the operation of
labor. This is true of all modern enter-
prises of any magnitude. So that while
capital is powerless without labor, labor
is hopelessly crippled without capital.
While it is earnestly hoped that the present
warfare will lead to a peaceful adjustment
of two opposing forces whose interests are
so closely allied, it is necessary for those
who attempt to force wages higher to real-
ize their present limitations to permanent
success. The same might be said of those
who attempt to force wages down.

Take another example, that of the ques-
tion of strikes. Strikes are a means of
war, and like all war are to be deplored
when peace will solve the problems of
humanity. How much wisdom is needed
to tell when a strike is justifiable and will
prove successful, and when it should be
avoided. How much intelligence and self-
control is needed by the strikers that they
may conduct themselves wisely through a
trying ordeal. The declaration of war
has made or unmade nations. It is the
critical time in any organization when it
goes to war, and it requires the wisdom of
sages to tell whether it will prove an ulti-
mate benefit or detriment.

Again, it is necessary to obtain a cor-
fect view of affairs. A thorough knowl-
edge of the condition of industries is
essential. While a few manufacturers and
employers are amassing wealth, the aver-
age employer gets only a fair return for
capital and management. Even then it is
claimed that about ninety per cent, of
business enterprises fail sooner or later.
It is usually where employers have been
able and willing to seize upon the power-
ful advantages of monopoly that they have

amassed wealth at the expense of labor.
In this matter laborers should use a wise
discretion, and not consider all employers
as their natural enemies. They may see
that the average returns to capital are not
so much greater thap. the average returns
to labor, as at first, they might seem to be.

Again, take the eight-hour movement
for another example. Granting that the
eight-hour day is theoretically correct, a
thorough acquaintance with all of the
difficulties arising from diversified indus-
tries which seem to oppose its practical
application will help towards its final tri-
umph. A sudden change from a ten to
an eight-hour day would seriously cripple
certain industries and displace labor, while
in other industries it seems like an impos-
sibility to enforce successfully an eight-
hour law. While calm, persistent and
peaceful agitation will slowly work the
desired change, economic society must
have ample time to adjust itself to the new
conditions. England has come from a

Online LibraryKansas. UniversitySeminary notes published by the Seminary of historical and political science → online text (page 56 of 62)