Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/184

168 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE $2 50 PER AMNUM 35 CENTS PER NUMBER Editorial Board. Jeremiah Smith, Jr., Editor-in-Chief. Charles Walcott, Treasurer. John A. Blanchard, James L. Putnam, Justin D. Bowkrsock, Herbert A. Rice, Robert Cushman, Alex. D. Salinger, David A. Ellis, Charles B. Sears, Richard W. Hale, John S. Sheppard, Jr., Billings L. Hand, Frank B. Williams. Hugh W. Ogden, The Law School. — During this year and last two courses and four half courses have been added to the instruction offered. 'Ihcse are, — Per- sons, new this year, and given by Professor Smith ; Insurance, this year made a full course and given by Professor Wambaugh ; Damages and Conflict of Laws, half courses begun last year by Assistant Professor Beale. Contracts II., a new half course in contracts given by Professor Wambaugh ; and Legal History, a half course which may be taken as a full course by permission, given by Professor Ames and Assistant Profes- sor Beale jointly. These bring the total number of courses up to twenty- six and one-half, or twenty-seven if Legal History be taken as a full course ; and they show that the supremacy of the school in quantity and quality of instruction is to be maintained. The returns now at hand show a most gratifying increase in the num- bers of the school. The third year class is the largest on record. Full statistics will be given in the December number. The Common Sense and Common Lavv^ of Interstate Commerce. — Judge Shiras, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Iowa, in the case of Murray v. Chicago & North-western Ry. Co., 62 Fed. Rep. 24, after a luminous and thorough discussion of the cases and dicta of the United States Supreme Court and the Federal courts, and a careful examination of the opinion of Judge Grosscup in the case of Sivift & Company v, Philadelphia R. R. Co., reported in 7 Harv. L. R. 488, dissents vigorously from the conclusions arrived at by Judge Grosscup in that case. The decision is a master piece of logic and keen reasoning, and demonstrates very forcibly the dangerous results to which Judge Grosscup's decision would lead. He shows not only by historical considerations, the development and growth of law in the United States, and the analogy from equity and mari-