stance of the law is pretty clearly more desirable than is a limitation of the machinery through which that law is administered. If any provision is to be placed in the constitution of Illinois regarding labor controversies, care should be taken so to phrase the provision that it will not prevent other forms of action desired in the future.

CORPORATIONS, RAILROADS, WAREHOUSES, PUBLIC UTILITIES, BANKING AND INSURANCE.

This chapter seeks to discuss briefly the various provisions of the present constitution regarding corporations in general, and regarding specific types of businesses which are affected with a public interest.

Corporations. With respect to corporations, there are several sections of the present constitution which may raise issues for consideration by the constitutional convention. Section 2 of Article 11 is probably obsolete, and may with safety be omitted.

Section 3 of Article 11 raises several definite problems as to constitutional policy. Cumulative voting is expressly provided for in this section, and with respect to this matter the constitutional provision is self-executing. If it is desired to retain cumulative voting for corporations, the provision should remain unchanged.

The issue also presents itself under this section as to the organization of cooperative corporations. Illinois has a law for the organization of co-operative companies, and this law forbids any one person to own more than five shares of stock in one company. This statutory provision was inserted for the purpose of preventing any one individual from controlling a co-operative company. It would have been constitutionally impossible to permit individuals to own a larger number of shares of stock than they should be permitted to vote. A number of states have copied the Illinois constitutional provision regarding cumulative voting of shares of stock in corporations (California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, West Virginia). However, California expressly provides that in co-operative societies members may vote in the manner prescribed by law; and North Dakota in 1918 adopted a constitutional amendment under which "any cooperative corporation may adopt by-laws limiting the voting power of its stockholders." The Wyoming constitution contains a section which requires the legislature to "provide by suitable legislation for the organization of mutual and co-operative associations or corporations." It is, of course, impossible under the Illinois constitutional language to limit voting power or to vary voting power as among different types of stock in corporations.

Article 11, section 14 is unnecessary, and in the view of the Supreme Court was merely inserted out of excess of caution. The right of eminent domain could be used for the condemnation of the property and franchises of corporations irrespective of this provision, although the removal of the provision might be construed to involve. implications against legislative power in this respect. This matter

will be found further discussed in Bulletin No. 7 on eminent domain. and excess condemnation.

Some states have provided in detail by their constitutions for corporation commissions, which not only control the organization of corporations, but also supervise public utilities. This is true of the constitutions of Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. Virginia and Oklahoma, however, expressly provided that constitutional provisions with respect to corporation commissions should be subject to legislative amendment after a certain fixed date.

Railroads. A full review of the present constitutional provisions regarding railroads will be found in an article by Mr. Rush. C. Butler in the proceedings of the Illinois State Bar Association for 1917. Mr. Butler sums up his conclusions as follows: "Briefly to summarize, it is my conviction that the constitution of the State of Illinois should be entirely silent on the subject of railroad regulation. In the absence of specific constitutional provisions, the legislature of the state will be vested with the full remaining power of the people of a state to regulate intrastate commerce."

As Mr. Butler says, some of the provisions of the constitution with respect to railroads are obsolete, and some of them are useless. For example, such a provision as Article 11, section 13, providing that "no railroad corporation shall issue any stock or bonds, except for money, labor or property actually received and applied to the purposes for which such corporation was created," is practically unenforcible, and has necessarily been construed in such a way as to be substantially useless. It may probably be said that all of Article 11, sections 9 to 15 is either obsolete or merely repeats matters which it would be within the power of the General Assembly to accomplish.

In connection with railroads, attention should also be called to the provision of Article 2, section 13 that "the fee of land taken for railroad tracks, without the consent of the owners thereof, shall remain in such owners, subject to the use for which it was taken." This constitutional provision has been discussed in Bulletin No. 7 on eminent domain and excess condemnation. It has made difficult the carrying out of city plans which require the relocation of railroad. tracks.

Warehouses. The provisions of the constitution regarding warehouses (just as the provisions with respect to railroads) were placed in the constitution when the movement for the regulation of railroads and warehouses was in its infancy. The constitutional provisions in Illinois do not add to the power which would otherwise belong to the General Assembly, and have served little purpose. However, here as with respect to other provisions of the constitution, care should be taken to say that omissions of existing provisions, if made,

are not to be construed as reducing the legislative power. Provisions. as to warehouses will be found in the constitutions of North Dakota, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Perhaps attention should also be called to recent constitutional amendments which have extended the state power in South Dakota and North Dakota, so that the states themselves may embark upon the enterprise of operating grain elevators.

Public utilities. Railroads and warehouses of course come within the term "public utilities," but it is desirable to comment briefly upon the effect of Article 11, section 4 of the constitution, which provides that "no law shall be passed by the General Assembly granting the right to construct and operate a street railroad within any city, town or incorporated village without requiring the consent of the local authorities having the control of the street or highway proposed to be occupied by such street railroad." The Supreme Court has said that this section "merely means that the constitution has conferred upon the city, power to determine whether street railways shall be operated upon its streets, and if so, upon what streets. To this extent, and no further, the constitution has committed to the city the control of the operation of street railways in its streets."1

This section of the constitution, therefore, means nothing more than that the city determines in the first instance whether a street railway shall operate upon its streets. After the city has made this determination, the state power over the operation of the street railroad is complete.

Municipal home rule as to public utilities, and municipal ownership and operation of public utilities present two of the most serious problems which will come before the constitutional convention. The power of the General Assembly to grant municipal home rule with respect to public utilities and to authorize cities to own and operate their public utilities is probably now unquestioned, and the General Assembly has authorized municipal ownership and operation to a very large extent. The supervision over public utilities is in substantially complete form in the hands of state authorities under present legislation. Efforts have been made for some years to obtain legislation which might enlarge supervision of cities over their local public utilities.

With respect to municipal ownership of public utilities, the primary constitutional question is that of debt limits. Under existing municipal debt limits, it is impossible for the city of Chicago, and for many other cities, to acquire the ownership of their local public. utilities. This matter will be found fully discussed in the chapter dealing with debt limits, which appears in Bulletin No. 4, on state and local finance, and in Bulletin No. 6, dealing with municipal home rule.

1 City of Chicago v. O'Connell, 217 Ill. 561 (1917), recently affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.

Banks. With respect to banks, several issues will present themselves to the constitutional convention. Perhaps the most important issue likely to present itself is that of farm loans. Under the terms of the present constitution, it is impossible for the state to embark in any way upon farm loan enterprises, and an effort will be made to obtain authority for such enterprises. The subject of farm loans will be found fully discussed in Bulletin No. 13, on farm tenancy and rural credit.

Another question will present itself with respect to Article 11, section 5 of the constitution as to whether the provision for a popular referendum shall remain with respect to banking legislation. The present provision has come to be a formality, and banking laws are approved by the people almost as a matter of course. The requirements. for a referendum upon bank legislation came into constitutions in the main before the Civil War, largely as the result of unfortunate state experiences with banking, and it may be urged that such provisions are no longer needed. Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin now provide for the enactment of banking legislation by a two-thirds vote in each of the two houses.

Article 11, section 6 prescribes a double liability for stockholders in banks, and some discussion may present itself with respect to this liability. It should be noted, however, that the double liability of bank stock with respect to state banks, is the same as the liability by federal legislation for federal national banks, and that there has, as yet, been no tendency to remove such liability from the constitutions which contain provisions of this character.

Attention may be called to the fact that the banking provisions of the constitution contains details regarding banks of issue. There have been no banks of issue in the state since the Civil War, and this provision was inserted in the constitution of 1870 in order to provide for the contingency that Congress might remove the federal tax upon state bank note issues. This contingency is not likely to arise, and for this reason the removal of these provisions may be suggested.

Insurance. The constitution of Illinois contains no provisions regarding insurance. Within recent years, provisions have come into some state constitutions with respect to insurance, although such provisions have added nothing to the general legislative power for the regulation of this industry. It is possible, however, that the proposal may be made to embody into the constitution provisions regarding the regulation of insurance.