Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal

more »

... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. HARVARD LAW REVIEW. insufficient is ex post facto, though creating no presumption. Hart v. State, 40 Ala. 32; Goode v. State, 50 Fla. 45, 39 So. 461. But one changing the competency of witnesses is not. Hopt v. Territory of Utah, IIo U. S. 574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202; Wester v. State, 142 Ala. 56, 38 So. ioio; Mrous v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 2I S. W. 764. The courts apparently give no weight to the difference between changes in admissibility of the evidence and changes in its legal effect. State v. Johnson, I2 Minn. 476. Nor to the fact that the statute admits, rather than excludes, the evidence. Cf. O'Bryan v. Allen, io8 Mo. 227, i8 S. W. 892. What is a permissible change of the accused's rights seems a matter of degree. In the principal case, the statute applied only to criminal cases. The retroactive effect of a statute admitting in all cases writings previously inadmissible has been held constitutional. Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380, i8 Sup. Ct. 922. The breadth of such a statute may more conclusively negative any legislative intent of breaking faith to the accused, but the distinction seems fine, and the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of the statute should prevail.