enters a street car whose route, speed and fare are regulated by the public. Reaching the center of the city, he ascends to his office by an elevator subject to public inspection, and reads the mail that has been brought to him from all parts of the United States by public servants. If the dimness of his office may cause him to regret that sunlight appears to be outside public protection, he may be answered that by recent provision the height of buildings is regulated and the malicious construction of high fences is prohibited. If now he leaves his office and goes to some store or factory in which he owns an interest, he finds that for female employees chairs must be provided, that children must not be employed in certain kinds of work, that dangerous machinery must be fenced, that fire escapes must be furnished, and probably that the goods produced or sold must be marked or packed in a certain way or must reach a certain standard. Indeed, whatever this man's business may be, it is almost certain that in one way or another the public's hand comes between him and his employee, or between him and his customer.

"Leaving his store or his factory, this average man deposits money in a bank, which is carefully inspected by public officials, and which is compelled by the public to refrain from certain modes of investment and also to publish periodical statements of its condition. He then makes a payment to an insurance company, which is subject to even stricter statutory regulations. He then goes to East Boston and back, upon a ferry boat owned and managed by the public.

"When finally all the business of the day is finished, this imaginary Bostonian walks through the Common and the Public Garden, and soon enters the Public Library, a building which is the latest and most striking expression of the public's interest in the individual. Leaving the Public Library, he strolls past a free bath house sustained by the public and then past a free public out-door gymnasium; and then hastens home

through streets that public servants are now
beginning to light.

"When this Bostonian reaches home, he can
reflect that he has passed no very extraordinary
day. If events had been a little different, the
public would have furnished steam fire engines to
protect his house, or a policeman to find a lost
child for him, or an ambulance to take his cook
to the city hospital, or a health officer to inspect
his neighbor's premises. No one of these emer-
gencies has arisen, and yet this average Bos-
tonian, if he has happened to think of the various
ways in which he has this day been affected by
public control, must wonder whether his morn-
ing's conception of the functions of government
was adequate.'

(American Bar Association Report, 1897,
pp. 307-309.)

These observations of Professor Wambaugh were made in 1897 25 years ago and they reflected then, as they do now, the trend towards increasing the powers of the Government. Made in 1897, they show that the problem is not new. Neither is it old and threadbare. It constantly reveals itself.

The following description of philanthropic and social activities, made in 1921, applies equally well to the entire field of social life, and characterizes the present drift of the Government to absorb all things to itself.

"For thirty years the philanthropists of America have indulged in a perfect orgy of charitable activity. They have developed and expanded every form of humanitarian service common to the civilized nations, and have searched the world and their own imaginations for types of moral and physical ailment to which the philanthropies of old were oblivious, in order that they might still further improve society, and have been wider openings for the spread of their social enthusiasms. They have organized to deal with every form of human need, and have established institutions to rectify every variety of human defect. They have had oversight, from the cradle to the grave, of those unfortunates

who anywhere along the way have fallen out of
balanced adjustment to their environment. Pre-
natal clinics, baby-welfare stations, orphan asy-
lums, charity hospitals, penny-saving societies,
child-hygiene associations, home-economics or-
ganizations, social-hygiene boards, dental clinics,
and settlement houses have dotted the land. The
socially minded have concerned themselves with
the unmarried mother, the crippled, the blind,
the insane, the deaf, the traveler, the tubercular;
they have agitated for better housing, for home
nursing, for backyard playgrounds; they have
enunciated a philosophy of the family, developed
a technique of case-work, and formulated meth-
cds for conducting the philanthropic enterprises
which have been generally accepted as an essen-
tial part of our organization of society. It has
been social heresy to inveigh against or even
question the fundamental importance of these
charities. Indifferent to a protest so feeble as to
be practically unheard, institutions for social up-
lift have followed our spread across the continent
like prairie tumble-weed blown by an autumn
gale.'

(Atlantic Monthly, September, 1921. Article by
Cornelia J. Cannon.)

Although the problem is old and limitations were necessarily imposed upon individual liberty from the very earliest times, the settled purpose now seems to be, to extend the limitations and so increase the powers of Government, that almost every action of the individual will be subject to revision by the Government and the individual will have to look to it "both for initiative and propulsion." This is not only a species of Governmental Paternalism, but what Dean Pound calls "Governmental Maternalism.”

If you will recur to 1880 and examine the statutory law of our State to ascertain what limitations existed then, and trace the Government expansion of power, it will be found that, year by year, individual liberty has been reduced and that we are returning to the old condition of status. From status to contract was a great advance in civilization but we are now reverting, in many respects, to status and with the

resultant consequences that contractual rights, are in many cases, restricted, regulated or prohibited.

I am aware that Dean Pound in "The Spirit of the Comman Law" says, "The famous generalization of Sir Henry Maine that the evolution of the law is from status to contract. is a generalization of the Roman Law only. The whole course of English and American Law today is belying it, unless we are progressing backward." Dean Pound argues that condition and relationship are part of the common law and that it was not real progress from status to contract and that in returning to status we are but following the original doctrine of the common law. Most of us, however, have been taught that the change from status to contract was real progress and are apt to consider that the return to status necessarily involves the curtailment of individual liberty.

Individual rights are determined by Commissions which are not governed by laws, designed to protect property and rights of individuals in the manner familiar to the lawyer. Liberty is now controlled by authority and by the passion for making laws and correcting and remedying everything by law. These laws seldom show mature deliberation and careful formulation, and frequently seem to have been hastily prepared, without due regard for conditions. Whenever a case appears which appeals to or shocks the public, immediately special legislation is prepared to cover these cases although its effect may be far-reaching and in the preparation of the legislation these far-reaching effects have been entirely overlooked. Such legislation is based upon no real principle and is frequently a mere response to passion and urgency.

Very little of it asserts or adheres to any great principle of action, or gives evidence of high moral standards. Hasty action, prejudice and temporary passion characterize it. "A foolish law does not become a wise law because it is approved by a great many people.

The changed conditions in urban life make changes necessary in governmental activities and a comparison between the activities of the lawyer 40 years ago and today, and the subjects which engaged his attention will make plain how great the change has been. In 1880, a successful lawyer had his time taken up chiefly by individual clients and in trying commercial and equity cases, with a tort case occasionally brought to his attention. Corporations were then as often plaintiffs:

as defendants. Now, corporations are more frequently defendants than plaintiffs, tort cases consume most of the time of the Courts, and a busy lawyer, instead of advising his clients on all matters and trying any cases at law and in equity, usually desires to confine himself to special clients and classes of cases.

In 1880 lawyers had little occasion to consider matters growing out of automobiles, bankrupts, civil service law, elevated railroads, employers' liability act, liability insurance and numerous other matters not necessary to mention, which have engaged the attention of the lawyers in the last twenty years.

It may be admitted, therefore, that under modern conditions increased Governmental activity becomes necessary. Despite this concession and despite the willingness to grant to Government a reasonable increase in its activities, it must be obvious that the disposition to control personal behavior and individual conduct has grown greatly beyond the needs.

A survey of the Legislation of Maryland since 1880 will show how greatly have the activities of Government increased, and in this respect Maryland does not represent the extreme. If a similar investigation be made of the Acts of Congress, there will be revealed a very much greater increase in Governmental activity. These State and Federal activities not only limit the liberty of the citizen, but the Federal Government has absorbed to itself many activities which should rest exclusively with the States.

The good of the community is the new test, but it is not always easy to determine between the good of the community and the individual good. Mill said "Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides according to the tendency of the inward forces, which makes it a living thing.'

The function of the law is "to secure to each the greatest amount of liberty consistent with the preservation of the individual liberty of others." "Individual liberty and the common good are not incompatible but are entirely consistent with one another."

The great danger in increased Governmental activity is the loss of individual initiative. The future of our institutions "depends upon enterprising, independent and courageous