of a proposed law. He should consider whether it is in harmony with existing laws; what enactments, if any, it will modify or repeal, and how; and if it is desirable on the whole to make the proposed change, it is his duty to see that it is made in such manner that it can be easily and clearly understood. The fewer amendments by implication the better.

It is not the purpose of this article to give a list of the mistakes that have been made since the revision of 1874. This would be a tedious job. Many of the worst cannot be made plain without extensive quotations, and others can only be appreciated in their application to actual cases.

The practice of relying upon the general repealing clause "All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed," instead of specifically repealing the acts and parts of acts that are in conflict and thus getting them out of the way, is an exceedingly bad practice. It tends to carelessness on the part of the legislature and confusion in the laws. The legislature seems to think this clause will ransack the entire body of the statutes, search out, repeal and expunge by its own vigor, all conflicting statutes. On the contrary the conflicting statutes still remain and must be reprinted with the live ones the same as if they remained unrepealed. The clause but expresses a rule of the common law that is so well understood, it does not need to be repeated. The last expression of the legislature repeals whatever is in conflict with it as well. without these words as with them. It is the duty of the legislature to know what acts and parts of acts are in conflict, and repeal them in distinct terms. The best revision of statutes is one that commences and proceeds with the successive amendments. It was thought this would be the effect of the clause in the constitution requiring the section amended to be "inserted at length in the new act." Unfortunately this clause is itself the occasion of mistakes and confusion, unless care is taken to harmonize the new act with others which it may repeal oramend by implication.

H. B. Hurd.

THE THEORIES OF HENRY GEORGE.

In the North American Review for July, is an article by G. T. Ferris, entitled "Practice v. Theory in re 'Henry George-' ism," which is worthy of special attention. Mr. Ferris refers to Mr. George Kennan's "Siberian" article in the Century, as having a bearing upon the new land theory. Mr. Ferris says:

"Mr. George regards government possession of land as the specific cure for social and industrial evils. He proposes to accomplish this by taxing land to the full rental value as the most convenient method of attaining the ideal. The end, however, is the extinction of private ownership, as all nominal title to land would in the end be destroyed after the substance of its value had ceased to exist."

He then reverts to Mr. Kennan's observations of the land system in Western Siberia;-to the splendid climate of that country-its plains of great fertility-its grand water ways, and the favorable conditions generally for agriculture and for the prosperity of the tillers of the soil. Most of the peasants and farmers are either voluntary settlers or the descendants of convicts who have regained civil rights. Mr. Ferris continues: "In this magnificent region there is a complete absence of fences, farmhouses, or any buildings outside of the villages. Cattle are inclosed in the common village pasture instead of in fenced fields outside. The Siberian peasant will not build a farm-house because he does not own the land. "With few exceptions' says Mr. Kennan 'the land belongs to the crown. The village communes enjoy the usufruct of it, but they have no legal title, and cannot dispose of it nor reduce any part of it to individual ownership. All they have the power to do is to divide it up among their members by periodical allotments, and to give to each head of a family a sort of tenancy at will. Every time there is a new allotment the several tracts of arable land held by the crown may change tenants. So that if an individual should build a house or a barn upon the tract of which he was the temporary occupant, he might, and probably would be forced, sooner or later, to abandon it. The result of this system of land tenure, and this organization of society, is to segregate the whole population in villages, and to leave all the intervening land unsettled.'

"Even the villages are shabby and cheerless, and signs of enterprise, comfort and taste are conspicuous by their absence. Such is the picture drawn by Mr. Kennan. Subtracting from the sum total the operation of the other agencies involved in Russian maladministration, enough is left to illustrate the results of the government ownership of land, and the death of individual right in real property."

WHO WERE VOTERS

IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY?

By the term "voters" will be understood those who, under the Charters, Constitutions and laws of the colonies, provinces and States, had in early times, the right of suffrage. Whether, as in New York and New Jersey, the class whose rights will principally be under discussion, actually voted, or whether, as in most other cases, they for any reason refrained from voting or from attempting to vote, is a matter which will be left entirely out of view, as not affecting the question from a legal stand-point. Political rights are not lost by non-user. In some parts of the South the colored people do not vote at all; yet no one doubts their legal right.

Understanding the term in this sense, let us see who were voters in the early history of this country. We will first take the original 13 States, which are the ones principally to be considered:

MASSACHUSETTS.

By one of the very first laws of the Colony of New Plymouth, passed in 1632, only twelve years after the landing of the Pilgrims, "it was enacted by public consent of the freemen of this society of New Plymouth," etc.-(Plymouth Colony Laws, by Brigham, p. 30.)

By an act or resolution adopted at New Plymouth, Nov. 15, 1636, referring to the choosing of a Governor and seven Assistants, it was provided as follows:

"This election to be made only by the freemen according to the former custome," etc.-(Ibid. p. 37.)

But afterward it was enacted as follows:

"And such as are not freemen but have taken the oath of fidelitie and are masters of families and inhabitants of the said towns, as they are to bear their part in the charges of their committees, so to have a vote in the choyce of them."-(Ibid. p. 63.)

Who was an "inhabitant?" Let the law itself answer.

"Every person that liveth and is quietly settled in any township, and not excepted against within the compasse of three months after his comeing, in this case shall be reputed an inhabitant of that place.”—(Brigham's Colony Laws, p. 73.)

Were women "inhabitants?" Unless it be denied that a woman was a "person," it must be admitted that by being quietly settled in a township and not excepted against within three months, she became an inhabitant, and if an inhabitant and head of a family, she had a vote, whether she was a freeholder or not.

The recital of one law is as follows:

"Whereas, the number of freemen in many places is but small, and the inhabitants of the townships many more, who have equale votes with the freemen in the choice of deputies,” etc.--(Ibid. p. 112.)

By the Charter of third William and Mary, there was to be a Great and General Court or Assembly to consist of the Governor and Council or Assistants, and of such freeholders "as shall be from time to time elected or deputed by the major part of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the respective towns or places who shall be present at such elections." No freeholder or other person could have a vote who did not have a freehold to the value of forty shillings per annum, or other estate to the value of fifty pounds sterling.-(Charter and Laws, 1726, p. 7.)

The Explanatory Charter of King George recited the foregoing without change, and the Election Law of 1742 corresponded with that provision.

For many years, the form of the precept for calling the Great and General Court or Assembly, ran thus:

"These are ** to cause the freeholders and other inhabitants of your town [possessed of a freehold of 40 s. per annum, or other estate worth £50], to assemble," etc.-(Laws of 1759, p. 78.)

In the Constitution of 1780, the word "male" was inserted, and thus became, and has since remained, one of the qualifica

tions to entitle an elector to the benefit of the guaranty of the Constitution. If women had not previously an equal right to the suffrage, why was it necessary to insert the word "male" in the Constitution of 1780?

RHODE ISLAND.

The Original Charter of 15th Charles II, provided that the Governor and other officers should be chosen "out of the freemen of the said Company."-(Laws of R. I., 1798, p. 7.)

That the Assistants should be "thereunto elected or deputed by the major part of the freemen," etc.-(Ibid. p. 8.)

The election law, enacted in 1663, and re-enacted at various times, up to 1798, provided as follows:

"That no person whosoever shall be permitted to vote or act as a freeman in any town meeting in the State, but such only who are inhabitants therein and who" [are possessed of a freehold worth $134, or renting for $7 per annum.]—(Ibid. p. 115.)

This law was re-enacted in 1808, 1811, 1814 and 1822.(Laws of 1822, p. 90.)

Town officers to be elected by the freemen.-(Ibid. p. 258.) In 1840, the word "male" was first introduced into the law regulating the manner of admitting freemen.-(Pub. Laws after 1822, p. 2018.)

In 1842 the Constitution was adopted, in which the word "male" was inserted as a qualification.

Previous to the Constitution of 1842, the voters had been the inhabitants who were freeholders.

CONNECTICUT.

Connecticut, as is well known, was originally a colony of Massachusetts. In 1639, all "the free planters" formed a Constitution of Civil Government. It was provided

"That church members only shall be free burgesses, and that they only shall chuse magistrates,” etc.— Code of 1650, p. 118.

According to the Charter of 1662, the members of the General Meeting or Assembly were to be "elected or deputed by the major part of the freemen of the respective towns," etc.-(Rev. Laws, 1796, p. 2.)

By the Election Law of 1697, it was enacted "that every