ABSTRACT
The history of federal judiciary acts is singularly free from a frequent tendency in state legislation whereby the special need of an individual in a particular litigation is written into a judicial code. The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act provided for writs of error to state courts only when a state court had denied a claim of federal right. Fear of disobedience of national authority by state judiciaries determined this legislation. Mr. Justice Holmes' opinion, speaking for a unanimous Court, gave solid hope that the justification which underlay workmen's compensation legislation would find ample shelter within the due process clause. The twenty-fifth section, in its modern phrasing, became one of the most active sources of Supreme Court business. By a familiar canon of constitutional construction the Supreme Court was constrained to disregard the actual but unconstitutional intent of the promoters of this legislation if thereby it could save the Act, however restricted in its scope.
