story as Seen in American Law, p. 80.]

[Footnote 93: _Ibid._, p. 258.]

[Footnote 94: For a list of these cases see United States Supreme Court
Reports, Vol. 131. Appendix CCXXXV. Banks and Brothers Edition.]

[Footnote 95: Dissenting opinion Inter-State Commerce Commission, v.
Alabama Midland Railway Company, 168 United States, 144.]

[Footnote 96: For a discussion of these cases see "The Legal Tender
Decisions" by E.J. James, Publications of the American Economic
Association, Vol. III.]

[Footnote 97: Report of the Am. Bar Association, 1895, p. 246.]

[Footnote 98: For a discussion of this recent use of the injunction by
our Federal Courts see Annual Address of the President of the Georgia
Bar Association, John W. Akin, on "Aggressions of the Federal Courts,"
1898; W.H. Dunbar, "Government by Injunction," Economic Studies, Vol.
III; Stimson, Handbook of Am. Labor Laws.]

[Footnote 99: "We should like to see the law so changed that any man
arrested for contempt of court, for an act not performed in the presence
of the court and during judicial proceedings, should have a right to
demand trial by jury before another and an impartial tribunal. It is not
safe, and therefore it is not right, to leave the liberties of the
citizens of the United States at the hazard involved in conferring such
autocratic power upon judges of varied mental and moral caliber as are
conferred by the equity powers which our courts have inherited through
English precedents." Editorial in the _Outlook_, Vol. LXXIV, p. 871.]

[Footnote 100: C.H. Butler, Treaty-Making Power of the United States,
Vol. II, p. 347.]

[Footnote 101: Art. III, sec. 2.]

[Footnote 102: The constitutions of Maine (since 1820), Rhode Island
(since 1842), Florida (since 1875), and Missouri (constitution of 1865,
but omitted in constitution of 1875 and since).

A provision of this kind is also found in the Massachusetts constitution
of 1780, from which it was copied in the New Hampshire constitution of
1784. Its purpose in these two constitutions, however, was not to guard
against the subsequent exercise of the judicial veto, since the latter
was then unknown, but to make the judges of the Supreme Court an
advisory body to the legislature.]

[Footnote 103: Democracy and Liberty, Vol. I, p. 9.]

[Footnote 104: Elliot's Debates, Vol. III, p. 218.]

[Footnote 105: Works, Vol. I, p. 29. Cralle's Ed.]

[Footnote 106: Supra, p. 18.]

[Footnote 107: Infra p. 239.]