to English law makers that the Workman’s Compensation Act is inconsistent with this provision of their Great Charter—­a charter which is as much a part of the British constitution as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments are of ours.  In the English Constitution, as in the American, the principle is carefully defined in writing.  The only difference is that in England the Parliament is the final judge of its meaning; in the United States that final judge is the Supreme Court of the United States.

At least it ought to be.  But the New York Court of Appeals does not allow that it is the final authority.  In this particular case it is not, for no appeal lies by the plaintiff in this case from the state to the national court.  But an appeal does lie by the public. The Outlook takes such an appeal.  And it declares without hesitation that the decision of the New York Court of Appeals is in conflict, not only with the trend of judicial decisions in that Court, but also with its very explicit statement of the fundamental principles to be applied in interpreting the Constitution.

We have already noted the fact that maritime law regards a seaman as a co-adventurer with the shipowner, and therefore makes the ship liable for his care, keep, and cure in case any accident occurs to him, even though it be produced by his own fault.  We now add that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that such a law does not take the shipowner’s property without due process of law.  That, says the Court of Appeals, is different, for “the contract and services of seamen are exceptional in character ...  When he is sick or injured he is entitled to be cared for at the expense of the ship, and for the failure of the master to perform his duty in this regard the ship or the owner is liable.”  No doubt there is a difference between a seaman on a ship and a factory hand in a factory.  Very probably that difference ought to weigh with the representatives of the people in determining what difference there should be in their respective treatment.  But if making a ship liable for accidents happening to a seaman does not take the shipowner’s property without due process of law, then rendering a factory liable for accidents happening to a factory hand does not lake the factory owner’s property without due process of law.  The Constitution of the United States is precisely the same on sea as on land; but to the Constitution of the United Slates the Court of Appeals gives one meaning on shipboard and another meaning in the town.

The right of the legislature to impose new responsibilities upon property is not confined by the United States Supreme Court to the sea.  It is equally sustained upon the land.  The State of Oklahoma provided for an assessment on all banks in the State in order to create a fund for the purpose of guaranteeing the depositors in all banks in the State.  The Noble State Bank brought suit against the State to prevent it from collecting this assessment, on the ground