In the Poulson case it appeared that defendants Jarvis & Co., team owners and haulers, received an order from the Ministry of Muni tions to send a team and driver to haul wagons which were being loaded at one of the Liverpool docks. The defendant sent a team and a man, Davies, who was directed to report to the agent of the Minister of Munitions and use the team in hauling wagons which were being loaded by said agent. Defendants testified that they had no control over their servant after he reported to the Minister of Munitions; that when they control a job, they usually send a foreman to direct their men. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that Jarvis & Co. and not the Ministry of Munitions was liable for the negligence of Davies in injuring the plaintiff. The sole question on appeal was whether the superior who should respond for the negligent conduct of Davies was Jarvis & Co. or the Ministry of Munitions. In deciding that the foremen were liable, Lord Sterndale, M. R., said:

"I think that on this evidence, apart from authority, it was competent for the learned judge in the court below to come to the conclusion at which he did. As I have pointed out, as is so often the case, neither the Minister of Munitions nor the defendants in any way interfered with Davies except that the representative of the Minister of Munitions told him when the wagon was filled to take it outside away from the road traffic. There is nothing to show that it was contemplated by either party to the agreement that the representative of the Minister of Munitions should interfere with Davies in the management of his masters' horses, or that he ever attempted to do so, and I do not think the defendants would ever have allowed him to do so."

The learned Master of the Rolls discussed several leading English cases the conclusions in which indicate the difficulty in exactly defining the rule in this class of cases. The principal case on which defendants relied and which the Court found difficult in distinguishing was that of Donovan v. Laing, 68 L. T. Rep. 512 (1893), Q. B. 629. In this case the defendants supplied to another firm a crane and a man to work it in loading and unloading vessels. The working of the crane was directed by the hirers in the sense that their men gave the directions when to raise and lower the goods, and when to swing the arm of the crane. It was held that the defendants were not liable for the acts of the crane man, because he was for the time the servant of the hirer.

On the other hand, in McCartan v. Belfast Harbour Commissioners (1910), 2 Ir. Rep. 470;

(1911) 2 Ir. Rep. 143, the master of a vessel hired a crane worked by a man in the employment of the defendants to discharge his vessel. The man received the same directions as in Donovan v. Wharton (ubi sup.). It was held in the Court of Session and in the House of Lords that the defendants were liable, as the crane man was in their service, and not in that of the master or owners of the vessel.

The rule in the so-called carriage casesQuarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & W. 499 and Jones v. Corporation of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. Dir. 890is well known and generally accepted to-wit: that one who hires a carriage and driver from a liveryman is not liable for the driver's negligence. These cases are unusually distinguished on the ground that the hirer is a passenger rather than an employer and has no control over the driver. It is interesting, however, to note the argument of Lord Dunedin on the McCartan case (supra) in which he professes to see no distinction in principle between those cases and the cases where a master lends a servant and a crane to another. He said:

"Take the case of the hire of a carriage from a jobmaster. The hirer can tell the coachman 'to go on, to stop, to go to a certain place.' He can tell him to drive slower or faster within certain limits. All this control of the servant has been surrendered and transferred by the 'general' master, the jobmaster. But he cannot tell the coachman to drive at a speed which involves danger to the horses or the carriage; he cannot tell him to leave the Lox and allow the horses to be driven by the hirer himself or someone else of his selection. So here the hirer could tell the crane-man to lower or raise or move the crane alongside; he could not tell him to put a weight on the crane more than it would bear, or to drive it so fast as to endanger the machinery; or to descend from the crane, and let the hirer or one of his men work the crane instead of him. What difference in quality is there between these two sets of allowable and unallowable acts; I confess I see none, and the learned counsel for the appellants were utterly unable to suggest any."

In Dewar v. Tasker (23 Times L. Rep. 259), an engine was hired from the defendants by a company to do the hirers' work. The engine was worked by a man in the defendants' service, but was put at the disposal of the hirers, the Subsoil Company, and the defendants in fact exercised no control over the man or engine while working for the hirers, and did not know where it went or what it carried. The defendants were held liable on the ground that the man was acting as their servant, and not as the servant of the hirers.

CONSTITUTION.

Attacks on the Constitution.-Typical of the Socialist and I. W. W. assaults on Americanism are their attempts to overthrow the confidence the American people have enjoyed in their Constitution, and the faith we have had in Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the other men who steered the thirteen colonies out of the maze of confusion existing after the Revolutionary War. They established a government which has borne the brunt of many an assault and attempt at overthrow, downing the forces of sedition and establishing a strong national government, capable of dealing with national problems, yet without discarding the principle of "local selfgovernment" brought to this country by the Pilgrims.

We are today told that the Constitution is a document of infamy, designed to suppress the many for the advantage of the few. Men, such as the notorious Allen S. Broms, sometimes openly and sometimes covertly attempt to thrust the dagger of distrust into the hearts of Americans. Nor do they indulge only in generalities; thanks to the writings of some of our scholars and university investigators they are able to quote from these sources. For instance, on Sunday, December 7, 1919, Broms quoted copiously from Charles A. Beard, leaving in the minds of his hearers the conclusion that the Constitution was framed by grafters and thieves and has beeen used to destroy real democracy.

Let us examine some of the particular claims made by these agitators and see just how much truth they contain. The acid test of facts must be applied-here goes!

Was It Framed by Reactionaries?-It is frequentiy stated that the Constitution was framed by reactionaries, men entirely out of touch with the spirit of the men who had fathered and fostered our war for free

C. A. Beard are typical. An examination. of their books shows that (1) the Revolution is regarded as an expression of democratic thought, and (2) that the Federal Constitution represents a return to power of "the solid, conservative, commercial and financial interests of the country." (Beard, p. 75.)

What test can we apply? Can we not say that the opinions of the signers of the Declaration of Independence on the adoption of the new Constitution, would strongly indicate whether or not that document was really "reactionary ?"

The writings of both Smith and Beard would lead us to believe that a majority of the "signers" opposed the Constitution. "The Federal Convention assembled in Philadelphia only eleven years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, yet only six of the fifty-six men who signed that document were among its members." (Smith, p. 33.)

A large majority of the "signers," as a matter of fact, favored the Constitution.3 The claim, let us remember, is that the Constitution is a reactionary document and that this is evidenced by the fact that its framers were not in sympathy with the views of the men who had encouraged our war with England, the latter class being adequately represented by those who had the nerve to sign the Declaration of Independ

ence.

Careful investigation has disclosed the following facts as to the attitude of the "signers" on the adoption of the Constitution: Twenty-five favored and only eight opposed it. The views of the other nine (fourteen were dead) are unknown, though probably three would have been inclined

(1) Spirit of American Government.

(2) The Supreme Court and the Constitution. (3) For detailed proof see the author's article in the Central Law Journal, Dec. 7, 1917.

to favor and two to oppose the Constitution.

The Judicial V'eto.-The function of the courts in declaring void legislative acts which violate the limitations of federal and state constitutions has been regarded by many people with impatience, distrust, and open hostility.

It is commonly asserted that the power was unjustifiably assumed by the Federal Courts, as it was never intended by the framers of the Constitution that they should be allowed to exercise this function. In other words, John Marshall in 1803 without any express or implied warrant from the Constitution announced that the courts could declare laws unconstitutional.

Of the fifty-five members of the convention which tramed the Constitution, only thirty-nine took an active part in the proceedings. Twenty-five of these, beyond the shadow of a doubt, believed that the courts should, and would have the power to declare unconstitutional acts null and void. So the courts in declaring laws invalid have only exercised a power it was the intention of the constitutional convention to give them.*

This was understood by the members of the Constitutional convention and of the ratifying conventions in the various states. From 1778 to 1787 there were at least eight states in which laws were held to be unconstitutional, so this was no principle conceived in the "diabolic" brain of the "archimp, John Marshall." And before 1803, when the famous case of Marbury v. Madison occurred, in which Marshall said the courts could declare laws unconstitutional, there were nine Federal precedents which justified Marshall in making that statement.

(4) For specific proof of this and the following statements see a study by the author in the American Law Review, September-October, 1917.

The truth is, the radical claims simply cannot, even when supported in part (and wrong deductions are often drawn from correct statements) by the writings of nonSocialists, stand the light of the facts.

Was the Constitution Forced Upon the People?-Jack Carney's paper "Truth" (shades of Diogenes!) on September 19, 1919, printed an editorial on Constitution Day, saying that "it is a mockery for us to even mention Constitution Day, much less celebrate it."

Carney, the Communist, then said: "After the Constitution had been formed, the next step was to have it ratified by the people. Out of a population of 3,000,000 not more than 120,000 were entitled to vote for those who were to constitute the state conventions that were to consider the Constitution. Due to the fact that property qualifications shut out the working class of the cities and the debtors of the back country." Again: "It was forced upon the people of this Republic by another trick, namely, that of granting the vote to those who possessed property and allowing only those who had property to vote for its ratification or rejection."

An examination of the facts brought out in Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," the book quoted by Broms and other agitators, brings out some mighty interesting facts -facts not nearly so damaging as the general claims made by Beard and the radicals.

Suffrage and the Constitution.-On page 250 Beard says that 160,000 voters "expressed an opinion one way or another on the Constitution." This is one-third more than Carney admits-but why should a paper named "The Truth" be asked to substantiate any statements it makes? Anyway, such papers believe that 90 per cent fiction and 10 per cent facts make much more interesting reading.

Beard also brings out some very interesting stuff on this question of "property qualifications" mentioned by Carney. (1) The states generally adopted just the same qualifications already imposed on those who voted for members of the lower branch of the state legislatures. (2) New York was the only state where no property qualifications were used in voting on delegates to the ratifying convention. (3) "Nothing like the same proportion was disfranchised as would be today under similar qualifications." (4) "Dr. Jameson estimates that probably one-fifth of the adult males were shut out in Massachusetts, and it would probably be safe to say that nowhere were more than one-third of the adult males disfranchised by the property qualifications."

No restrictions in New York; only onefifth disfranchised in Massachusetts; not more than one-third in any state disqualified this is very far from supporting claims such as Carney's that the Constitution was adopted because the great mass of the people were not "entitled to vote." He says only 120,000 were so entitled; actually 160,000 did vote, and many, many more than one-third in any state disqualisample of the kind of lies spread by "The Truth" and kindred radical publications.

Why did only 160,000 vote for delegates to the state conventions? Beard says (p. 242): "Far more were disfranchised through apathy and lack of understanding of the significance of politics. It is a noteworthy fact that only a small proportion of the population entitled to vote took the trouble to go to the polls until the hot political contests of the Jeffersonian era." Yet the Socialists and Bolshevists of America register a mighty wail because the people too apathetic to vote and those not understanding the questions they would have voted on did not go to the polls and select delegates to ratify or reject the Constitution of the United States. We should

(5) Pp. 240-242.

thank our lucky stars that these people didn't go to the polls! In Boston," for instance, 2,700 men were entitled to vote-but only 760 turned out to pass upon the question of adoption of the national Constitution; half as many as voted for governor at the next election.

Why does not the Socialist inform you that of the 160,000 who did go to the polls 100,000, five of every eight, voted in favor of the Constitution? (Beard, p. 250.)

Who Opposed the Constitution?-Says Beard: "The debtors everywhere waged

war against the Constitution." Why? "The debtors knew that they would probably have to settle their accounts in full and the small farmers were aware that taxes would have to be paid to discharge the national debt if the Constitution was adopted." How did this national debt arise? From the expenses of the Revolutionary War. Many patriots invested their all in government securities to enable this country to become free. We owed money to France and Holland. For one, I applaud those Americans who voted for the Constitution and to pay the just debts of this country. Personal and national accounts should be paid in full.

We are also told that opposition to the Constitutions came "from the areas in which debtors had been formulating paper money and other depreciatory schemes." Yes, the people who had flooded the country with worthless paper money and other schemes to pay their debts with valueless. securities and who wanted to force others to take this stuff at its face value objected to being forced to "toe the mark." They were willing to force others to take worthless notes in payment of accounts; they were not willing to come to time and give value received themselves.

Yet the Socialist, parlor and cellar, wants us to waste our sympathy on these two classes who wished to avoid honest payment, and to believe that because the Constitution was not defeated in their interests that it is, therefore, a scheme of Satan, represented in the United States by such men as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison.

Advocates of the Constitution.-Beard" informs us that "large security holders," meaning the holders of government bonds, "must have formed a very considerable dynamic element, if not the preponderating element, in bringing about the adoption of the new system." Men with "actual economic advantages at stake" were "the leading champions of the new government." Well, what of it? Does this prove that the new government was a bad thing? One trouble with our Socialist friends is that

they can't imagine people doing anything contrary to their economic interests, simply because of a desire for good government, from altruistic motives of any kind. Because the men who held government bonds, and had risked their money to free this country from the yoke of a hated oppressor, wanted to make them worth 100 cents per dollar of face value, the agitators want us to believe that the Constitution they favored was, according to Carney, "framed expressly for the ruling class."

The truth compels us to say, however, that Beard fails to prove that the leaders in the movement for a stronger government were influenced by their financial interests rather than by a desire to promote the public welfare.

In the Constitutional Convention the six chief leaders (according to Beard) in the movement for a strong central government were Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, Washington, Gouverneur Morris and Charles. Pinckney. These six held government bonds to the stupendous sum of $21,046. George Washington, with a fortune of

(9) P. 290.

about half a million, had only $6,246 of these bonds.

The leading opponents were William Patterson, John Dickinson, Gerry, Luther Martin, Ellsworth, and W. S. Johnson. These men held $87,979.90 of government bonds (Beard's own figures). One of them, Gerry, is believed to have held much more than the $30,000 he is known to have owned. The six chief opponents of the Constitution held four times the amount of government bonds that the six leading advocates owned.

These figures certainly do not prove a lack of patriotic endeavor on the part of the men trying to solve the dangers of the period.

Conclusion.-Political interests, as wel! as economic interests, were at stake in the formation of a strong government for this really object to is not that such a really country. I wonder if what the Socialists strong and efficient government was estab lished that they are having more difficulty in overthrowing it than they anticipated? During the days of the Articles of Confederation following the Revolutionary War political government became as disorganized as did the financial policies, and as paralyzed as the trade situation. If this nation were to survive and prosper a strong and cohesive government was necessary. Just such a government was established.

The wisdom of a policy or movement is determined by its results. The American Constitution when weighed by results with any other organ of government, the wide. world over, need fear no comparison and no equals.

Americans must wake up and demonstrate by facts the untruths and misrepresentations spread broadcast by the agitator. Constant reiteration of statements is effective, and we must see that untrue statements regarding our government do not go unchallenged.

Minneapolis, Minn.

NOEL SARGENT.