probation officers may also inquire into the cases of convicted prisoners, if the term of imprisonment, which they have still to undergo, does not exceed six months, and recommend their release on probation. If the court so directs, or, in case of the superior court, the district attorney and the county commissioner concur in the recommendation, the prisoner is to be released, but on probation only, and may be rearrested and confined for the remainder of his term. If the duties of these officers are wisely performed, it seems that some good may be accomplished. No doubt it often happens that a man of average morality who desires to do right, and for a long time has succeeded as well as most men, takes at last a single false step in a moment of dire temptation, and cases of sincere repentance may exist among criminals and convicts. General rules which create rewards for good behavior are not likely to defeat the ends of criminal statutes, and a sound discretion may well be exercised in favor of the most meritorious of the criminal classes, to save them from utter and hopeless degradation injurious to themselves and useless to the state.

A few miscellaneous matters remain to be noticed. In Connecticut next October a proposed constitutional amendment will be submitted to the people, which declares that the judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts shall be appointed by the general assembly upon the nomination of the governor. Last October, in the same state, another proposed constitutional amendment providing that judges should leave the bench at the age of seventy-five, was defeated, and the old law under which judges became superannuated at the age of seventy remains in force. The Connecticut law is a more reasonable one than the statute which ousted Chancellor Kent from the New York bench at the age of sixty, but judges frequently retain their power to a greater age than seventy, and a good judge is too valuable to the state to be removed by the operation of a cast-iron rule, while mind and body remain unimpaired.

Two useful statutes have been passed in Georgia and Iowa, providing for the appointment of commissioners of immigration.

The duties of the Iowa commissioners are somewhat vaguely defined to be to induce capital and industry to seek investment and employment in the state. The Georgia statute is more specific. The commissioner is directed, among other things, to disseminate correct information as to the soil, climate, production, and resources of Georgia, to arrange special rates of transportation for immigrants, and to keep in his office a registry of lands for sale, and of persons who desire to purchase lands, or to procure employees or employment. It is plainly of the greatest importance that definite information should be given the vast nuinbers of immigrants now landing on our shores, concerning the occupations in which there is room for them.

Georgia has also enacted a usury law, fixing the legal rate of interest at eight per cent, and declaring that any person exacting a higher rate shall forfeit all interest. The policy of usury laws has been seriously questioned of late, and the tendency of modern legislation is in the direction of their abolishment. New York is one of the few states which still possess an out and out usury law, declaring both principal and interest forfeited in case a usurious loan is made. In twelve states and territories usury laws no longer exist. In sixteen the only penalty which they impose is the forfeiture of the interest. And in ten more the lender forfeits only the excess of the contract rate over the legal interest.

Another statute, which will meet the disapprobation of those who believe that special industries should not be stimulated at the expense of others, has been passed in New Hampshire. It provides for the payment of bounties to manufacturers of beet sugar. New Jersey, also, offers bounties to persons raising flax, jute, and hemp.

New Hampshire has taken action upon the vexed question of taxation of church property, and hereafter all churches in that state, valued at more than ten thousand dollars, must pay taxes the excess of their valuation over that sum.

upon

Among the statutes of Louisiana for 1880, is a curious law providing for a license tax to be levied on persons engaged

in a number of different occupations. Almost all occupations, except those of farmers, laborers, and mechanics, seem to be made subject to this tax. The act specifies persons engaged in manufacturing, or banking, or in any wholesale or retail business, or in the business of insurance, or carrying or storing goods, attorneys, physicians, editors, and many others. The amount to be paid varies according to the nature of the occupation and the amount of business done. A bank, for instance, pays a license tax of twenty-five hundred dollars, if its average deposits for the year amount to two millions and a half. A pawn broker, whose capital in actual use amounts to fifty thousand dollars, must pay an annual tax of two thousand dollars. A lawyer, if his gross receipts exceed ten thousand dollars, must pay fifty dollars, but if less than two thousand, only five dollars. Provision is made for the examination of books and papers for the purpose of discovering the amount of business done, and the tax collector is allowed a commission of two and a half per cent. on all license fees paid. It is not easy to imagine a more vexatious tax than the one imposed by this statute. It is inquisitorial, and therefore offensive to the citizens of a free country. The burden of a year's interest on the state debt should have seemed a trifling one in comparison. It obliges every business man to lay open the whole record of his private affairs before the tax collector, and for this reason must become odious to the people who are subject to the inquisition.

Other statutes of recent date might be noticed, but I am not unmindful of the excellent advice of my predecessor in office at our last meeting, that we should not undertake to accomplish too much in the early days of our association, and I forbear to weary you further.

The third annual meeting of the American Bar Association is now organized. I congratulate you upon the large attendance and the gratifying evidence of increasing interest in our association.

PAPER

READ BY

HENRY E. YOUNG.

Sunday Laws.

This subject, I fear, will be without much general interest. The laws for the observance of Sunday, though on the statute books of all of our states, have fallen into such disuse that they seldom come to the attention even of our profession, except when used as a short-hand way of getting rid of some nuisance on Sunday, which is otherwise prohibited; or when pleaded by some corporation as a defence to some action for neglect of duty.

Still, one of the objects of this association is "to promote uniformity of legislation throughout the Union," and it has, therefore, seemed to me not inappropriate to ask your attention. to a branch of the law in which this uniformity is sadly wanting. May I also be permitted the hope that the attention thus called, will result in the removal from our statute books of laws, in many respects, repugnant to the views and habits of our people, and which meet with little respect, and still less observance.

Whether or not a rigid observance of Sunday, in the spirit of the Hebrew Sabbath, was taught by the early church, or is the later growth of the spirit which we now call Puritanism, is a matter of dispute, and for the purposes of this paper, of no consequence. In this country the rules of a church are without legal sanction, and in no true sense, laws.

Some, it is true, have held that these Sunday laws are so inseparably connected with religious belief, that they abridge that freedom of conscience which the constitution guarantees.