Concert recording 2018-03-13

[Track 1]. The rovin\u27 gambler [Track 2].Gambler, don\u27t you lose your place The gambler\u27s lament / John Jacob Niles -- [Track 3]. Immortality [Track 4]. Serenity Religion / Charles Ives -- [Track 5]. Old American songs, first set. 1. The boatman\u27s dance (Minstrel song - 1843) [Track 6]. 2. The dodger (Campaign song) [Track 7]. 3. Long time ago (Ballad) [Track 8]. 4. Simple gifts (Shaker song) [Track 9]. 5. I bought me a cat (Children\u27s song) / Aaron Copland -- [Track 10]. Three songs, op. 45. 1. Now have I fed and eaten up the rose (James Joyce) [Track 11]. 2. A green lowland of pianos (Czeslaw Milosz) [Track 12]. 3. O boundless, boundless evening (Christopher Middleton) / Samuel Barber -- [Track 13]. Five Walt Whitman poems. O you whom I often and silently come [Track 14]. Sometimes with one I love [Track 15]. Gliding o\u27er all [Track 16]. Look down, fair moon [Track 17]. Gods / Ned Rorem -- [Track 18]. Four encore songs. 1. Tobacco (Graham Lee Hemingher) [Track 19]. 2. A flea and a fly (Anonymous) [Track 20]. 3. Come, come , said Tom\u27s father (Thomas Moore) [Track 21]. 4. Song of the open road (Ogden Nash) / Florence B. Price

Reuschlein: JURISPRUDENCE-ITS AMERICAN PROPHETS.

A Review of JURISPRUDENCE-ITS AMERICAN PROPHETS. A Survey of Taught Jurisprudence. By Harold Gill Reuschlein

Lenin, Stuchka, Reisner, Pashukanis, Stalin, Vyshinsky, Yudin, Golunskii, Strogovich, and Trainin: \u3cem\u3eSOVIET LEGAL PHILOSOPHY\u3c/em\u3e

A Review of SOVIET LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. By V. I. Lenin, P. I. Stuchka, M. A. Reisner, E. B. Pashukanis, J. V. Stalin, A.Y. Vyshinsky, P. Yudin, S. A. Golunskii, M. S. Strogovich, and I. P. Trainin. Translated by H. H. Babb. Introduction by J. N. Hazard

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-USE OF TELEVISION AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

Defendant, not claiming constitutional protection against self-incrimination, refused to testify before a Senate committee on grounds that his constitutional rights would be violated if compelled to give testimony while being televised, photographed, etc. Cited for willfully and without justification refusing to testify on matters pertinent to the purpose of the inquiry, defendant was tried for contempt of Congress. Held, not guilty; defendant\u27s refusal was justified. The court, after stating that there were no precedents, and that no constitutional issue was involved, seemed to rest its decision on the fact that the atmosphere of the forum did not lend itself to the purpose of the inquiry. If truthful disclosures of fact were being sought, then the publicity apparatus may so distract the witness as to induce him to make mistakes and thus defeat the legislative purpose in calling the witness to testify. United States v. Kleinman, (D.C. D.C. 1952) 107 F. Supp. 407

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY-EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

The ordinance here involved prohibited any person from addressing a political or religious meeting in any public park. At a meeting involving no disturbances or breaches of the peace, plaintiff, a Jehovah\u27s Witness, was arrested when he addressed a meeting in a public park. The state supreme court upheld a conviction under the ordinance. Held, reversed. The principal case is on all fours with Niemotko v. Maryland. The state conceded at oral argument that the meeting was a religious one and that the ordinance as construed and applied did not prohibit church services in the park. Therefore, since Catholics and Protestants could hold their services there, it would be treating the religious services of the Jehovah\u27s Witnesses differently if they were denied use of the park. The Niemotko case decided that such discrimination was barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 73 S.Ct. 526 (1953)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-VAGUE AND INDEFINITE STATUTE

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by section 301(f) prohibits a factory operator from refusing to permit entry and inspection as provided by section 704. Violation of section 301(f) is made a misdemeanor by section 303(a). Section 704 authorizes persons duly designated by the Administrator, after first making request and obtaining permission of the . . . operator of the factory, to enter and to inspect at reasonable times. Defendant was convicted by the district court for violating section 301(f), having refused permission to authorized persons to enter and inspect at a reasonable time. The court of appeals reversed, on the ground that section 301(f) was violated only if the factory operator refuses to allow entry and inspection after previously granting permission. On appeal, held, affirmed. The relevant sections may be read as they were by the court of appeals, or they may be read as making it a misdemeanor to refuse permission on request to enter and inspect. However section 301(f) is read, it does not give fair warning that failure to give permission is a crime. The court will not sanction making the denial or permission an offense, when the act on its face gives that right to the factory operator. United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174, 73 S.Ct. 189 (1952)

Torts in English and American Conflict of Laws: The Role of the Forum

\u27\u27Private international law owes its existence to the fact that there are in the world a number of separate territorial systems of law that differ greatly from each other in the rules by which they regulate the various legal relations arising in daily life. Where the systems are those of member states of a federal union, there should be less difference in their laws than where they are those of sovereign nations divided by strong cultural, social and political barriers. Interstate conflicts and international conflicts are likely to give rise to somewhat different considerations and rules, and it is surely significant that the relevant branch of law is generally known in the United States as the conflict of laws and in England more usually as private international law. It is, therefore, worth summarizing at the outset the different function which the conflict of laws or private international law performs in the two countries, since this may help to explain why, in the area of torts specifically, their rules appear to be so different. Whether the difference in effect is as great as the difference in appearance would lead one to believe is, however, somewhat questionable

Kelsen: PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

A Review of PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. By Hans Kelsen

Constitutional Law - State Action - Trade Union\u27s Authority is Not Derived from the State

Plaintiffs claimed that defendant union and defendant company conspired to discriminate against Negro cab driver employees by means of a working regulation intended to compel plaintiffs to pick up passengers only in wards inhabited primarily by Negroes. Two bases for original jurisdiction in federal court were advanced. First, it was contended that the cause of action involved more than $3,000 and arose under the laws of the United States because the bargaining power of the union was conferred upon it by the National Labor Relations Act. Second, it was maintained that the Civil Rights Act vested jurisdiction, on the ground that the discrimination was practiced under color of state law since the union acted by authority conferred upon it by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act. Held, original jurisdiction was not vested in the district court. The right of the union to engage in collective bargaining was recognized long prior to the NLRA and hence its power was not derived from the act. Also, since the power of the union was conferred upon it by the consent of its members, it could not be said that it acted under authority bestowed upon it by either the federal or Pennsylvania acts. Williams v. Yellow Cab Co., (3d Cir. 1952) 200 F. (2d) 302

VENUE-THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS\u27 LIABILITY ACT

In response to the need created by a highly dangerous era of railroad employment, and subsequent to the passage of similar legislation in Europe, there was enacted in 1906 a Federal Employers\u27 Liability Act. The attempted coverage of the first FELA was too broad to withstand the constitutional scrutiny of a five-to-four Supreme Court, and it consequently remained for the Congress of 1908 to enact valid legislation for the protection of the railroad employee. Whether or not: the FELA is the most efficacious solution to the problem of the injured railroad employee continues to be warmly debated, but for the present the act provides one of the most heavily litigated of all federally created rights capable of enforcement in state as well as federal courts. It is with the venue features of the act that this comment is concerned