^{page 160 note 1} ‘The first century of the constitution, New Princeton Review, iv (1887), 175–90Google Scholar; cf. Robinson, J. H., ‘The original and derived features of the constitution’, Annals of the Am. Acad. of Pol. and Soc. Sci., i (1890), 203–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W. C. Webster, ‘Comparative study of state constitutions of the American Revolution;, ibid., ix (1897), 380–420.

^{page 160 note 2} McLaughlin, A. C., America & Britain (1919), p. 148 n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 1} Philadelphia, 1897.

^{page 161 note 2} New York, 1894.

^{page 161 note 3} Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., ii (1908), 532–44.

^{page 161 note 4} Knust, H., Montesquieu und die Verfassungen der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (Munich, 1922)Google Scholar; Cattelain, F., Étude sur l'influence de Montesquieu dans les constitutions americains (Besancçon, 1927)Google Scholar; Miller, M. F. X., ‘Bellarmine and the American constitution’, Studies, xix (1930), 361–75Google Scholar; Wright, B. F., ‘The origins of the separation of powers in America’, Economka, xiii (1933), 169–85Google Scholar; Harvey, R. F., Jean Jacques Burlamaqui; a Liberal Tradition in American Constitutionalism (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1937)Google Scholar; Goodykoontz, C. B., ‘The founding fathers and Clio’, Pacific Hist. Rev., xxiii (1954), 111–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 161 note 5} The Confederation and the Constitution (New York, 1905), pp. 273–6: cf. America & Britain (New York, 1919), p. 148Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 6} New York, 1932.

^{page 161 note 7} New York, 1928.

^{page 161 note 8} 2 vols., New York, 1898.

^{page 162 note 1} Am. Hist. Rev., iv (1899), 734–5Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 2} Cf. pp. 246–52, 275–6; see also Am. Hist. Rev., xi (1906), 919–20Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 3} New York, 1882.

^{page 162 note 4} Beard, C. A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New York, 1913), p. 1Google Scholar; cf. Bancroft, G., op. cit., ii, 366–7Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 5} ‘Democracy and the constitution’, Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, n.s., xxii (1912), 294, 295, 317Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 1} New York, 1898.

^{page 163 note 2} San Francisco, 1899.

^{page 163 note 3} Philadelphia, 1900.

^{page 163 note 4} Am. Hist. Rev., v (1900), 467–90Google Scholar, reprinted in The Courts, the Constitution, and Parties (1912).

^{page 163 note 5} McMaster, J. B. and Stone, F. D. (eds.), Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787–1788 (Lancaster, Pa., 1888)Google Scholar; Grigsby, H. B., History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, 2 vols. (Richmond, Va., 1890–1891)Google Scholar; Harding, S. B., The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in the State of Massachusetts (Cambridge, Mass., 1896)Google Scholar; Bates, F. G., Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union (New York, 1898)Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 6} Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, i, no. 1 (Madison, Wisc., 1894)Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 7} 5 vols., Washington, D.C., 1894–1905 [1906].

^{page 163 note 8} 34 vols., Washington, D.C., 1904–37.

^{page 163 note 9} 2 vols., New York, 1905.

^{page 163 note 10} Philadelphia, 1906.

^{page 163 note 11} 3 vols., New Haven, 1911; revd. ed., 4 vols., 1937.

^{page 164 note 1} New Haven, 1913; cf. The Fathers of the Constitution; a Chronicle of the Establishment of the Union (New Haven, 1921)Google Scholar.

^{page 164 note 2} Cf. Wright, B. F., The Growth of American Constitutional Law (Boston, 1942), c. viGoogle Scholar.

^{page 164 note 3} ‘Democracy and the constitution’, Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, n.s., xxii (1912), 293Google Scholar.

^{page 164 note 4} Moore, B. F., The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Legislation, Columbia Univ. Studies, no. 133 (New York, 1913), p. 5Google Scholar; cf. Boudin, L. B., ‘Government by judiciary’, Pol. Sci. Quar., xxvi (1911), p. 264Google Scholar, Haines, C. G., The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy (New York, 1914), p. vGoogle Scholar.

^{page 165 note 1} Philadelphia, 1893.

^{page 165 note 2} Cf. Trickett, W., ‘The great usurpation’, Am. Law Rev., xl (1906), 356–76Google Scholar; Meigs, W. M., ‘Some recent attacks on the American doctrine of judicial review’, Am. Law Rev., xl (1906), 641–70Google Scholar; Lewis, E. R., A History of American Political Thought from the Civil War to the World War (New York, 1937), pp. 123–44Google Scholar; Meyer, H. H. B., List of Works relating to the Supreme Court of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1909)Google Scholar; Senior, Mildred R. (comp.), The Supreme Court; its Power of Judicial Review with respect to Congressional Legislation; Selected References, Publications Division of Library Science, the George Washington University, no. 1 (Washington, D.C., 1937)Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 3} New York, 1907.

^{page 165 note 4} Goldman, E. F., ‘J. Allen Smith; the reformer and his dilemma’, Pacific Northwest Quar., xxxv (1944), 195–212Google Scholar.

^{page 165 note 5} The Spirit of American Government, p. 31.

^{page 165 note 6} Ibid., pp. vi–vii.

^{page 166 note 1} The Spirit of American Government, pp. 29–30.

^{page 166 note 2} Ibid., p. 320.

^{page 166 note 3} Ibid., pp. 31–2.

^{page 166 note 4} Ibid., pp. 218–19.

^{page 166 note 5} Ibid., p. 9.

^{page 166 note 6} Cf. Goldman, E. F., ‘Origins of Beard's economic origins of the constitution’, Journ. Hist. Ideas, xiii (1952), 243Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 7} New York, 1913; ‘with a new introduction’, New York, 1937Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 8} Cf. Blinkoff, M., The Influence of Charles A. Beard upon American Historiography, Univ. of Buffalo Studies, Monographs in History, xii (Buffalo, 1936)Google Scholar.

^{page 166 note 9} Beard, C. A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York, 1913), p. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 167 note 1} Ibid., pp. 324–5.

^{page 167 note 2} Cf. Brown, R. E., Charles Beard and the Constitution (Princeton, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 167 note 3} ‘Marbury v. Madison and the doctrine of judicial review’, Michigan Law Rev., xii (1914), 538–72Google Scholar, reprinted in The Doctrine of Judicial Review, its Legal and Historical Basis, and Other Essays (Princeton, 1914); cf. Trickett, W., ‘Marbury v. Madison; a critique’, Am. Law Rev., liii (1919), 737–48Google Scholar; McLaughlin, A. C., ‘Marbury v. Madison again’, Am. Bar Assoc. Journ., xiv (1928), 155–9Google Scholar; Haines, C. G., The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd ed., Publications of the University of California at Los Angeles in Social Sciences, i (Berkeley, Calif., 1932), pp. 193–203Google Scholar.

^{page 168 note 1} Am. Law Rev., xix (1885), 175–203Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Abstract of Professor Scott's paper’, Papers of the Am. Hist. Assoc., ii (1887–1888), 45–7Google Scholar, and Am. Hist. Rev., iv (1899), 456 n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 168 note 2} Harvard Law Rev., vii (1894), 129–56Google Scholar; cf. Coles, W. D., ‘Politics and the Supreme Court of the United States’ Am. Law Rev., xxvii (1893), 182–208Google Scholar; Goodell, A. C. jr., ‘An early constitutional case in Massachusetts’, Harv. Law Rev., vii (1894), 415–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fowler, R. L., ‘The origin of the supreme judicial power in the federal constitution’, Am. Law Rev., xxix (1895), 711–25Google Scholar.

^{page 168 note 3} 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1895.

^{page 168 note 4} Michigan Law Rev., iv (1906), 616–30Google Scholar.

^{page 168 note 5} Loc. cit., ix (1911), 102–25, 283–316Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 1} Mowry, E., ‘Political and party aspects of the national judiciary, 1789–1801’, Am. Hist. Mag., iii (1895)Google Scholar; Meader, L. H., ‘The council of censors’, Pa. Mag. of Hist. & Biog., xxii (1898), 265–300Google Scholar; Scott, A., ‘Holmes vs. Walton; the New Jersey precedent’, Am. Hist. Rev., iv (1899), 456–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Farrand, ‘The Judiciary Act of 1801’, ibid., v (1900), 682–6, and ‘ The first Hayburn case’, ibid., xiii (1908), 281–5; W. E. Dodd, ‘Chief Justice Marshall and Virginia’, ibid., xii (1907), 776–87.

^{page 169 note 2} New York, 1912.

^{page 169 note 3} Pol. Sci. Quar., xxvii (1912), 1–35Google Scholar.

^{page 169 note 4} Chicago, 1912.

^{page 169 note 5} Haines, op. cit., pp. 126–7, 131, 132–5.

^{page 169 note 6} Cf. Haines, C. G., The Conflict over Judicial Powers in the United States to 1870, Columbia Univ. Studies, no. 92 (New York, 1909), p. 6Google Scholar; Moore, B. F., The Supreme Court and Unconstitutional Legislation, Columbia Univ. Studies, no. 133 (New York, 1913), pp. 6–7Google Scholar.

^{page 170 note 1} Princeton, 1914; cf. Countryman, E., The Supreme Court of the United States. With a review of certain decisions relating to its appellate power under the constitution (Albany, N.Y., 1913)Google Scholar.

^{page 170 note 2} Meigs, W. M., ‘The American doctrine of judicial power, and its early origin’, Am. Law Rev., xlvii (1913), 683–96Google Scholar; Davis, H. A., ‘Annulment of legislation by the Supreme Court’, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., vii (1913), 541–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; F. E. Melvin, ‘The judicial bulwark of the constitution’, ibid., viii (1914), 167–203; Miller, D. H., ‘Some early cases in the Supreme Court of the United States’, Va. Law Rev., viii (1922), 108–20Google Scholar; Warren, C., Earliest cases of judicial review of state legislation by federal courts’, Yale Law Journ., xxxii (1922–1923), 15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ‘The early history of the Supreme Court of the United States, in connection with modern attacks on the judiciary’, Mass. Law Quar., viii (1923), 1–23Google Scholar, and ‘New light on the history of the federal judiciary act of 1789’, Harv. Law Rev., xxxvii (1924), 49–132Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., ‘The progress of constitutional theory between the Declaration of Independence and the meeting of the Philadelphia Convention’, Am. Hist. Rev., xxx (1925), 511–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stinson, J. W., ‘Marshall and the supremacy of the unwritten law’, Am. Law Rev., lviii (1924), 856–71Google Scholar; Burns, E. M., ‘Madison's theory of judicial review’, Kentucky Law Journ., xxiv (1936), 412–23Google Scholar; Lerner, M., ‘John Marshall and the campaign of history’, Columbia Law Rev., xxxix (1939), 396–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, W., ‘The intention of the framers; a note on constitutional interpretation’, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., xlix (1955), 340–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 171 note 1} Brown, D. W., The Commercial Power of Congress … 1788 to 1809 … (New York, 1910)Google Scholar; Elliott, E. G., Biographical Story of the Constitution; a Study of the Growth of the American Union (New York, 1910)Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., John Marshall and the Constitution; a Chronicle of the Supreme Court (New Haven, 1919)Google Scholar; Thach, C. C., The Creation of the Presidency, 1775–1789, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, ser. xl, no. 4 (Baltimore, 1922)Google Scholar; Warren, C., The Supreme Court and Sovereign States (Princeton, 1924)Google Scholar, Congress, the Constitution and the Supreme Court (Boston, 1925; revd. & enl. ed., 1935)Google ScholarPubMed, and The Making of the Constitution (Boston, 1928; new ed. 1937)Google ScholarPubMed; Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States (Washington, D.C., 1927)Google Scholar; Munro, W. B., The Makers of the Unwritten Constitution (New York, 1930)Google Scholar; Wright, B. F., American Interpretations of Natural Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1931)Google Scholar; Hendrick, B. J., Bulwark of the Republic; a Biography of the Constitution (Boston, 1937)Google Scholar; Lasson, N. B., The History and Development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, ser. lv, no. 2 (Baltimore, 1937)Google Scholar; Hart, J., The American Presidency in Action, 1789; a Study in Constitutional History (New York, 1948)Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 2} Beveridge, A. J., The Life of John Marshall, 4 vols. (Boston, 1916–1919)Google Scholar; Warren, C., The Supreme Court in United States History, 3 vols. (Boston, 1922)Google Scholar, revd. ed., 2 vols. (Boston, 1926); cf. Haines, C. G., ‘Histories of the Supreme Court of the United States written from the Federalist point of view’, Southwestern Pol. and Soc. Sci. Quar., iv (1923), 1–35Google Scholar.

^{page 171 note 3} New York, 1923 and 1939.

^{page 171 note 4} New York, 1935.

^{page 172 note 1} Dealey, J. Q., Growth of American State Constitutions from 1776 to the End of the Year 1914 (Boston, 1915)Google Scholar; Hicks, J. D., Constitutions of the North-west States (Lincoln, Neb., 1923)Google Scholar; Green, F. M., Constitutional Development in the South Atlantic States, 1776–1860 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1930)Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 2} Wise, J. S., A Treatise on American Citizenship (Northport, N.Y., 1906)Google Scholar; Roche, J. P., The Early Development of United States Citizenship (Ithaca, N.Y., 1949)Google Scholar; Hoyt, E. A., ‘Naturalization under the American colonies; signs of a new community’, Pol. Sci. Quar., lxvii (1952), 248–66Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 3} Cf. Beard, C. A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York, 1937), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 172 note 4} Cf. Beale, H. K., ‘What historians have said about the causes of the Civil War’, in Theory and Practice in Historical Study: a Report of the Committee on Historiography, Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 54 (New York, 1946)Google Scholar.

^{page 172 note 5} Corwin, E. S., National Supremacy; Treaty Power vs. State Power (New York, 1913)Google Scholar; Tucker, H. St. G., ‘The treaty-making power under the constitution of the United States’, North Am. Rev., cxcix (1914), 560–72Google Scholar; E. S. Corwin, ‘The treaty-making power; a rejoinder’, ibid., 893–901.

^{page 172 note 6} New York, 1897.

^{page 173 note 1} New York, 1926; see also, Flack, H. E., The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, extra vol. xxvi (Baltimore, 1908)Google Scholar; Broek, J. ten, The Anti-Slavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment (Berkeley, Calif., 1951)Google Scholar; James, J. B., The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment (Urbana, Ill., 1956)Google Scholar. Weeden, W. B., ‘The constitution of the United States as modified in the Civil War, Am. Pol. Sci. Assoc. Proc, iii (1907), 67–79Google Scholar, is of no value.

^{page 173 note 2} New York, 1938.

^{page 173 note 3} Haines, C. G., The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd revd. ed. (1932), p. 233Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 1} Haines, C. G., The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government and Politics, 1789–1835 (Berkeley, Calif., 1944), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 2} Jensen, M., The Articles of Confederation; an Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774–1781 (Madison, Wisc., 1940)Google Scholar, and The New Nation; a History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781–1789 (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; cf. Am. Hist. Rev., lxi (1956), 781Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 3} Parrington, V. L., Main Currents in American Thought, 3 vols. (New York, 1927–1930)Google Scholar.

^{page 174 note 4} 2 vols., New York, 1932.

^{page 174 note 5} Op. cit., i, p. ivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 174 note 6} 2 vols., Chicago, 1953.

^{page 174 note 7} Writings on American History 1948 (Washington, D.C., 1952)Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 1} Boston, 1943.

^{page 175 note 2} Sharfman, I. L., The Interstate Commerce Commission, 4 vols. in 5 (New York, 1931–1937)Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 3} Haines, C. G., The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd revd. ed. (1932), p. 514Google Scholar.

^{page 175 note 4} Ibid., p. 391.

^{page 175 note 5} Ibid., pp. 403–6; cf. Bauer, Elizabeth K, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1790–1860, Columbia Univ. Studies, no. 575 (New York, 1952)Google Scholar, Leslie, W. R., ‘The influence of Joseph Storey's theory of the conflict of laws on constitutional nationalism’, Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev., xxv (1948–1949), 203–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Jacobs, C. E., Law Writers and the Courts, the Influence of Thomas M. Cooley, Christopher G. Tiedeman, and John F. Dillon upon American Constitutional Law (Berkeley, Calif., 1954)Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 1} Dolan, P., ‘Changing concepts in the constitutional pattern in the United States, 1865–1917’, Dickinson Law Rev., lv (1951), 121–8Google Scholar; Hofstadter, R., Social Darwinism in American Thought (Philadelphia, 1944)Google Scholar; Twiss, B. R., Lawyers and the Constitution; how Laissez-faire came to the Supreme Court (Princeton, 1942)Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., ‘The impact of the idea of evolution on the American political and constitutional tradition’, in Persons, S. (ed.), Evolutionary Thought in America (New Haven, 1950)Google Scholar.

^{page 176 note 2} Berkeley, Calif. (1932); Boston (1942); Chicago (1946); see also, Meigs, W. M., The Relation of the Judiciary to the Constitution (New York, 1919)Google Scholar; Bullitt, W. M., ‘The Supreme Court and unconstitutional legislation’, Am. Bar Assoc. Journ., x (1924), 419–25Google Scholar, Corwin, E. S., The Twilight of the Supreme Court; a History of our Constitutional Theory (New Haven, 1934)Google Scholar, and Court over Constitution; a Study of Judicial Review as an Instrument of Popular Government (Princeton, 1938)Google Scholar, Field, O. P., Judicial Review of Legislation in Ten Selected States (Bloomington, Ind., 1943)Google Scholar, and ‘Unconstitutional legislation by Congress’, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., xxxix (1945), 54–61Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 1} Wright, B. F., The Growth of American Constitutional Law (Boston, 1942), P. 205Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 2} Haines, , American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, 2nd revd. ed. (1932), p. 529Google Scholar.

^{page 177 note 3} Boudin, L. B., Government by Judiciary, 2 vols. (New York, 1932), i, pp. vi–viiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 178 note 1} Cit. Boudin, L. B., Government by Judiciary, 2 vols. (New York, 1932), i, P. viGoogle Scholar.

^{page 178 note 2} Stone, H. F. ‘Fifty years' work of the United States Supreme Court’, Am. Bar Assoc. Journ., xiv (1928), 428–36Google Scholar.

(a) Guthrie, W. D., Lectures on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Boston, 1893)Google Scholar.

(b) Hunting, W. B., The Obligation of Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, ser. xxxvii, no. 4 (Baltimore, 1919)Google Scholar; Wright, B. F., The Contract Clause of the Constitution (Cambridge, Mass., 1938)Google Scholar.

(c)Prentice, E. P. and Egan, J. G., The Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution (Chicago, 1898)Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., The Commerce Power versus States Rights (Princeton, 1936)Google Scholar; Frankfurter, F., Commerce Clause under Marshall, Taney, and Waite (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1937)Google Scholar.

(d) Corwin, E. S., ‘The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment’, Mich. Law Rev., vii (1909), 643–72Google Scholar, and ‘The doctrine of due process of law before the Civil War’, Harv. Law Rev., xxiv (1911), 366–85, 460–79Google Scholar; Collins, C. W., The Fourteenth Amendment and the States (Boston, 1912)Google Scholar; Mott, R. L., Due Process of Law. A Historical and Analytical Treatise … (Indianapolis, 1926)Google Scholar; Boudin, L. B., ‘Truth and fiction about the Fourteenth Amendment’, New York Univ. Law Quar. Rev., xvi (1939), 19–82Google Scholar; Graham, H. J., ‘The ”conspiracy theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment’, Yale Law Journ., xlvii (1938), 371–403, xlviii (1939), 171–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McLaughlin, A. C., ‘The court, the corporation and Conkling’, Am. Hist. Rev., xlvi (1941), 45–63Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., Liberty against Government; the Rise, Flowering and Decline of a Famous Juridical Concept (Baton Rouge, 1948)Google Scholar.

(e) Carr, R. K., Federal Protection of Civil Rights; Quest for a Sword (Ithaca, N.Y., 1947)Google Scholar.

On the Supreme Court and the New Deal, see Corwin, E. S., Constitutional Revolution Ltd. (Claremont, Calif., 1941)Google Scholar; Jackson, R. H., The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy (New York, 1941)Google Scholar; Dodd, W. F., ‘The United States Supreme Court, 1936–1946’, Am. Pol. Set. Rev., xli (1947), 1–11Google Scholar; Pritchett, C. H., The Roosevelt Court. A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947 (New York, 1948)Google Scholar; on still later developments, see Corwin, E. S., Total War and the Constitution (New York, 1947)Google Scholar; Cushman, R. E. (ed.), ‘Ten years of the Supreme Court, 1937–1947’, pt. i, Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., xli (1947), 1142–81Google Scholar, and ibid., pt. ii, ibid., xlii (1948), 32–7.

^{page 179 note 1} Am. Hist. Rev., 1 (1945), p. 349Google Scholar.

^{page 179 note 2} The Growth of Constitutional Power in the United States (Chicago, 1946), P. 33Google Scholar.

^{page 180 note 1} Smith, J. A., The Spirit of American Government (New York, 1907), pp. 127–8Google Scholar, though not there predicated specifically of the people of one of the states of the union.

^{page 181 note 1} Cf. Larkin, J. D., The President's Control of the Tariff (Cambridge, Mass., 1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 181 note 2} Theodore Roosevelt, quoted by Beard, C. A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York, 1937), p. vGoogle Scholar.

^{page 182 note 1} Corwin, E. S., ‘The basic doctrine of American constitutional law’, Mich. Law Rev., xii (1914), 247–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haines, C. G., ‘The law of nature in state and federal judicial decisions’, Yale Law Journ., xxv (1915–1916), 617–57Google Scholar, and ‘Judicial review of legislation in the United States and the doctrines of vested rights and implied limitations on legislatures’, Texas Law Rev., ii (1924), 257–90, 387–421, iii (1925), 1–43Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., ‘The ”higher law” background of American constitutional law’, Harv. Law Rev., xlii (1929), 149–85, 365–409Google Scholar, reprinted Ithaca, N.Y., 1955; Haines, C. G., The Revival of Natural Law Concepts. A Study of the Establishment and Interpretation of Limits on Legislatures with special reference to the Development of certain phases of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1930)Google Scholar; Corwin, E. S., ‘The debt of American constitutional law to natural law concepts’, Notre Dame Lawyer, xxv (1949–1950), 258–84Google Scholar.