Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

The Distinction between Legislative and Judicial Power

William Hamilton Cowles
The American Law Register and Review
Vol. 40, No. 7, (First Series) Volume 31 (Second Series, Volume 5) (Jul., 1892), pp. 433-457
DOI: 10.2307/3305373
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3305373
Page Count: 25
Subjects: Law
Find more content in these subjects: Law
  • Download PDF
  • Add to My Lists
  • Cite this Item
We're having trouble loading this content. Download PDF instead.

Notes and References

This item contains 89 references.

[Footnotes]
  • 1
    Spencer, Political Institutions, Ch. XIII: Maine. Early History of Institutions. Lect. IX and X.
  • 1
    Spirit of Laws, Bk. XI, Ch. VI. First published in 1748.
  • 2
    MADISON, Federalist, No. 47.
  • 3
    MADISON, Federalist, No. 47.
  • 4
    HAMILTON, Federalist, No. 81.
  • 1
    1 Stimson, American Statute Law, 39.
  • 2
    Declaration of Rights, Art. XXX.
  • 3
    Art III, Sec. 1.
  • 4
    This reference contains 4 citations:
    • Letters of JAY, C. J., and others, to President WASHINGTON, printed in 2 Dall., 410 n.
    • Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, p. 67
    • Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168
    • Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, No. 88, No. 174.
  • 1
    Merrill v Sherburne, 1 N. H., 204.
  • 2
    MARSHALL, C. J., in Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat., p. 46.
  • 3
    FIELD, J., dissenting, in Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S., p. 761.
  • 4
    This reference contains 5 citations:
    • COOLEY, Constitutional Limitations, No. 90.
    • Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt., p. 107
    • Smith v. Strother, 68 Cal., p. 196
    • Denny v. Mattoon, 2 All., p. 361
    • Shepard v. Wheeling, 30 W. Va., p. 482.
  • 1
    Bates v. Kimball, 2 Chip., 77.
  • 2
    People v. Provines, 34 Cal., 520.
  • 3
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Shepard v. Wheeling, 30 W. Va., p. 482
    • Copp v. Henniker, 55 N. H., 179.
  • 1
    Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall., p. 398.
  • 2
    Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenl., 298.
  • 3
    Bates v. Kimball, 2 Chip., 77.
  • 4
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Story, Constitution, Sec. 1587
    • Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt., 105.
  • 5
    Denny v. Mattoon, 2 All., 361.
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Maxwell v. Goetschius, 40 N. J. L., 383
    • Houseman v. Kent, 58 Mich., 364.
  • 2
    COOLEY, Constitutional Limitations, No. 94.
  • 3
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch, 194
    • Holden v. James, 11 Mass., 396.
  • 4
    11 Pa. St., 489.
  • 1
    43 Ia., 252 (1876).
  • 2
    City of Wahoo v. Dickinson, 23 Neb., 426 (1888).
  • 3
    Compiled Laws, 1889, Sec. 884.
  • 4
    Callen v. City of Junction City, 42 Kan., 627 (1890).
  • 5
    Compiled Laws, 1889, Section 552.
  • 1
    Huling v. City of Topeka, 44 Kansas, 577 (1890).
  • 2
    Hurla v. City of Kansas City, 27 Pac. Rep. (1891).
  • 3
    Kirkpatrick v. State, 5 Kansas, 673 (1868).
  • 1
    11 O. St., 96.
  • 2
    16 Mo., 88.
  • 3
    35 Pa. St., 335.
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • United States v. Ferreira, 13 How., 40
    • 1 Kent, 297 n.
  • 2
    Auditor v. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co., 6 Kan., 500.
  • 1
    COOLEY, Constitutional Limitations, No. 191.
  • 2
    Callen v. City of Junction, 43 Kan., p. 633.
  • 1
    MULFORD, The Nation, 205.
  • 2
    WOODBURY, J., dissenting, in Luther v. Borden, 7 How, p. 52.
  • 3
    COOLEY, Principles of Constitutional Law, 139.
  • 4
    75 Ill., 152 (1874).
  • 1
    State v. Simons, 32 Minn., 540 (1884).
  • 2
    Shumway v. Bennett, 29 Mich., 451 (1874).
  • 3
    People v. City of Riverside, 70 Cal., 461 (1886.)
  • 4
    People v. Carpenter, 24 N. Y., 86 (1861).
  • 5
    People v. Parks, 58 Cal., 624 (1881).
  • 6
    Shepard v. Wheeling, 30 W. Va, 479 (1887).
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Foster v. Commissioners, 9 O. St., 543
    • 19 American Law Review, 175.
  • 2
    19 American Law Review, p. 188.
  • 3
    State v. Armstrong, 3 Sneed, 634.
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Ex parte Burns, 1 Tenn., Ch. 83
    • ex parte Chadwell, id., 95.
  • 1
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S., 356
    • Shumway v. Bennett, 29 Mich., 451.
  • 1
    Van Slyke v. Insurance Co., 39 Wis., 390.
  • 2
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Munday v. Rahway, 43 N.J.L., p. 348
    • quoting COOLEY, Taxation, 34.
  • 3
    Houston v. Williams, 13 Cal., 24.
  • 4
    Ex parte Griffiths, Ind., 83.
  • 5
    Houseman v. Kent, 58 Mich., 364.
  • 6
    This reference contains 3 citations:
    • People v. Hayne, 83 Cal., 111
    • Railroad Co. v. Abilene Town Site Co., 42 Kan., 104.
    • State v. Noble, 118 Ind., 350, is contra.
  • 7
    COOLEY, Constitutional Limitations, No. 113.
  • 8
    Petition of Splane, 123 Pa. St., 527.
  • 9
    People v. Railroad Co., 12 N. Y. Sup., 41.
  • 1
    Commissioners v. Keller, 6 Kan., 307.
  • 2
    Gillett v. Commissioners, 18 Kan., 410.
  • 3
    Compiled Laws, 1889, Sec. 1649.
  • 4
    Story, Constitution, 1761.
  • 5
    Compiled Laws, 1889, Sec. 5480.
  • 6
    Art III, Sec. 1.
  • 7
    Art. II, Sec. 21.
  • 8
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • County of Leavenworth v. Brewer, 9 Kan., p. 319
    • Fulkerson v. Commissioners, 31 Kan., 126.
  • 1
    Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall., 409, 410 n.
  • 2
    In re Citizens of Cincinnati, 2 Flip., 228.
  • 3
    Art. II, Sec. 2.
  • 1
    Case of Supervisors, 114 Mass., 247.
  • 2
    People v. Provines, 34 Cal., 520.
  • 3
    Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25 Kan., 751.
  • 1
    In re Johnson, 12 Kan., p. 104.
  • 2
    4 American Jurist, 293.
  • 1
    Letter of JAY, C.J., and others, to President WASHINGTON, concern- ing the pension matter, 2 Dall., 410 n.
  • 3
    13 How., 52 n.
  • 3
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • Reply of the Judges, 33 Conn., 586
    • 24 American Law Review, 369
  • 4
    Application of the Senate, 10 Minn., 78.
  • 5
    Art. III, Sec. 2.
  • 6
    This reference contains 2 citations:
    • JOHN MARSHALL, in a speech in Congress, reported in 5 Wheat. App., 16
    • Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat., p. 819.
  • 7
    Federalist, No. 78.
  • 1
    Federalist, No. 78.
  • 2
    Ratcliffe v. Anderson, 31 Gratt., 105.