that time, fifty years ago, Cook County had not enough population to make one Grand Division, and hence the counties of Lake, DuPage, Kankakee and Will were added. During the ensuing five decades, this Grand Division, the 7th, has so grown that it contains more population than all the other six Grand Divisions together. It is needless to say that during all this time the 7th Grand Division has had but one member of the Supreme Court, although it has more than half the population and originates more than half the business in the Supreme Court. This organization, many county Bar Associations, including Cook County, and others, recommended that the new Constitution should provide for nine judges of the Supreme Court, and that three of them be elected from the 7th Grand Division, leaving the six other Grand Divisions as they are.

While this proposition met with no opposition whatever in the early days of the Convention and was embodied in 15 out of 16 proposals for the organization of the Supreme Court, yet as the question of representation in the legislature and the consequent restriction of Cook County became active, opposition developed to giving the 7th Supreme Court Grand Division any additional representation on the Supreme Court, and there was actually passed tentatively a clause of the judicial article leaving the Grand Divisions of the State exactly as they are, each with one representative on the Supreme Court.

The argument was used that there was no such thing as representation in a court unless it be regional representation; but there are some of us who believe that a State is made up of something more than regions, namely, men and women, and that the inhabitants of a State really constitute that State.

The Constitutional Convention finally, apparently observing the gross inequality in the structure of the Grand Divisions, provided that there should be seven judges of the Supreme Court, and that two of them should come from the 7th Grand Division, and that the rest of the State should be

redistricted into five Grand Divisions; but when this scheme was sought to be made operative by consolidating the six Grand Divisions into five, it was found to be utterly impractical, inasmuch as no one of the present Grand Divisions could be obliterated or divided or reduced with the consent of the representatives therefrom. There are some of us who believe that a Supreme Court should be constituted of able lawyers from different portions of the State familiar with and schooled in the particular type of litigation which may be charcateristic of that region. I feel confident that the country districts of Illinois would scarcely care to have their litigation arising out of township organization, roads and bridges, school districts and other things peculiarly rural, determined by a bench consisting of six Cook County lawyers and one from down-state. In the same way, many Cook County people feel that a great commercial metropolis, from which originate many propositions, conditions and situations impossible in a sparsely settled rural community, should have at least more than one regional representative on the Supreme bench.

We have often heard the expression in the Constitutional Convention-sometimes seriously made and sometimes in jest that Cook County wants the earth. Certainly never in the history of this State has it had what, under the Constitution and common fairness, it was entitled to.

1st-The legislature has refused to redistrict the State into congressional districts, because the two additional representatives in congress, to which Illinois was entitled under the census of 1910, would have been elected in Cook County. Instead it was provided that they be elected at large, and instead of getting two new representatives, Cook County has uniformly one new representative instead of the two to which it was entitled, and down-state has had one additional representative to which it was not entitled.

2nd-Under the census of 1910, Cook County would have been entitled to three new senatorial districts, under the census on 1920, it will be entitled to at least five. Since

the number of senators and representatives is fixed by the Constitution, these additional state senators and representatives must be taken from the down-state portion of Illinois. The result is that Cook County now is represented in the legislature by three less senators and nine less representatives than it is entitled to, and in the Constitutional Convention it has six less representatives than it is entitled to.

3rd-In the Supreme Court, although constitutionally entitled to but one member, in all fairness, the 7th Grand Division should have four out of seven, or five out of nine. It has one out of seven, and is perfectly willing to compromise by taking three out of nine of a new Supreme Court.

These observations are based upon the theory that the people make the State, that the people govern the State, that the doctrine of the rule of the majority is the American time-honored doctrine, and that democracy, or more particularly, a republican form of government, cannot long exist where any particular class is privileged, whether it be based on race, color, religion, sex or location.

I have often doubted, and still doubt, that the rank and file of the people throughout the State have had their minds so poisoned by propaganda along this line that they cannot see that their perfect safety lies in having control of one house, or that they are willing to give up all principles which have been taught us on governmental subjects as to the right of the majority to rule and to substitute therefor an arbitrary, illogical, indefensible thing which has for its only excuse the chimera of an impossible calamity. Let us get together,let us have a popular house, as the United States has it. Let us restrict the senate, if you please, but under no circumstances let it be possible for the small percentage of anarchists which we have in our midst, to defy the laws, and urge resistance to them on the ground that they are not the laws made by the whole people, nor a majority fo the people, but are only the expression of a down-state minority and therefore not binding.

THE CONSTITUTION AS RECENTLY AMENDED AND

CONSTRUED.

HONORABLE WILLIAM L. FRIERSON
SOLICITOR GENERAL

Addressing lawyers composing the bar association of a great State, I am safe in assuming that the Constitution of the United States, with all that relates to its history or throws light on its meaning, if discussed with reasonable intelligence, is a subject of absorbing interest to my hearers. The subject, however, has so often been the theme of abler men that I would not have the hardihood to risk taxing your patience, by its discussion, if it were not for what has occurred within recent years. We have seen the Federal Government doing so many unusual things-things which we have been accustomed to regard as beyond its legitimate powers-that it seems timely to emphasize the fact that the Constitution is not suspended during a period of war. Moreover, within a short time, 4 amendments have been proposed and adopted. For these reasons alone, I indulge the hope that what I may say of the "Constitution as recently amended and construed" may not be entirely without interest.

We have been so long at peace, and had become so familiar with the fundamental rules which limit the powers of government and protect the rights of the individual, that we had but an inadequate conception of the vast extent of the power which Congress invoked when, in 1917, it declared war, or, to be more exact, recognized the existence of a state of war, with the Imperial Government of Germany.

The provisions of the Constitution which may be said to relate expressly to war and its conduct are few and couched in very general language. They do little more than make the President the Commander-in-Chief of our Armies and Navies and confer upon Congress the power to declare

war and raise and maintain armies. But, when coupled with the power also expressly conferred upon Congress, to enact all laws which may be found necessary and proper for carrying into execution the granted powers, they furnish authority for all measures, not prohibited by some other provision of the Constitution, which shall be necessary to insure the conducting of a war, once declared, to a successful issue.

A declaration of war is not a mere notice of a hostile feeling. It is a solemn and determined announcement of a present purpose to accomplish the redress of wrongs or the attainment of definite ends by the force of arms. We were soon to realize something of what this means. We were prepared to see our young men drawn into the armies and their lives given to their country. This is the obvious and inevitable sacrifice which war exacts. We expected unusual tax burdens. In this we recognized a familiar power though wielded with a heavier hand than that to which we were accustomed.

But we saw hitherto unknown Federal activities in every community and in almost every home. We saw a Food Administration, under authority of Acts of Congress, controlling the distribution and fixing the prices of articles of food, and ordaining meatless days to be observed in every household. We saw a Federal Fuel Administration doing the same with coal and ordaining heatless days. Congress, to conserve food products, prohibited their use in the manufacture of distilled spirits, and, later, prohibited the manufacture or sale for beverage purposes of intoxicating liquors. Laws were enacted to prevent profiteering in the necessaries of life. Many other similar laws were enacted to which American citizens were unaccustomed and which they had regarded as beyond the power of Congress to enact. And yet, when challenged, they were upheld by the Supreme Court with a single exception. They were held valid, not because the Government, in time of war, can disregard any provision of the Constitution or do any act which is not