that it was taking property without due process of law.  The Supreme Court, without a dissenting opinion, held that the act was constitutional, on two grounds:  first, because “it is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what in its immediate purpose is a private use”; and, second, because “it may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.  It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare.”  A similar case coming before the Court from the State of Kansas was decided with the same unanimity by the Court at the same time.[78]

This definition of Constitutional law by the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United Slates, if accepted, clearly determines the constitutionality of the Workman’s Compensation Act.  That this Act “is sanctioned by usage and held by the prevailing morality and strong and preponderant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare” is proved by the fact that it is demanded alike by employer and employee, that it has been approved by the general public, that it is apparently regarded by the Court of Appeals itself as a reform much to be desired, and that it has been adopted by every civilized country in Europe except Switzerland.  The New York Court of Appeals can find only one escape from this declaration of principle by the highest tribunal in the land, in these two cases, namely, a repudiation of the authority of that tribunal in these cases:  “We cannot recognize them as controlling our construction of our Constitution.”

In this review of the decision of the New York Court of Appeals we have passed by without comment some extraordinary statements which should not be passed by in any complete review—­the statement that “practically all of these [European] countries are so-called constitutional monarchies in which, as in England, there is no written constitution,” whereas, in fact, practically all of the European nations have written constitutions; and the statement that the Workman’s Compensation Act “does nothing to conserve the health, safety, or morals of the employee,” whereas, in fact, it is aimed and purposed to accomplish all three results, and was urged in the English House of Lords by Lord Salisbury specifically on the ground that “to my mind the great attraction of this bill is that I believe it will turn out a great machinery for the saving of human life.”

But we have deliberately neglected all minor details in an endeavor to put before our lay readers a true interpretation, and what we hope they will generally believe to be a just criticism, of this decision of the highest court of the Empire State.  In that decision, in our opinion, the Court has disregarded all considerations of social justice and public policy, has set itself against the conscience and judgment of the civilized world, and in its forced interpretation of the Constitution has disregarded alike the history of the Constitution’s origin and of its judicial interpretation by the highest court in the land.