Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/447

 416

THE GREEN BAG

concurred in the opinion of the majority of the court, but held that the protection of the Fourth Amendment did not extend to cor porations in any case and also expressed some what different views of the question whether the subpo?na duccs iccnin in the Hale case was too broad and indefinite. "Mr. Justice Brewer wrote a dissenting opin ion in which the Chief Justice concurred. These justices held that the immunities and protection of Articles Fourth, Fifth, and Four teenth of the amendments of the Federal Constitution are available to a corporation ' so far as in the nature of things they are appli cable,' although they agreed with the majority of the court that the protection accorded by the Fifth Amendment is personal to the indi vidual and does not extend ' to an agent of an individual or justify such agent in refusing to give testimony incriminating his principal.' "The court has never before had occasion to express its opinion upon the question thus decided. It has always been supposed that Congress could, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, require corporations to comply with statutory regulations as condi tions precedent to their engaging in interstate trade, as, for instance, that they should subject their books and papers relative to inter state trade to examination by an administra tive officer of the government. But it has never before been decided that the fact, that a corporation has without an express fran chise from the national government engaged in trade among the States, imposes upon it an obligation in a judicial proceeding different from that resting upon an individual in similar circumstances to disclose its affairs. The im portance and far-reaching effect of the de cision cannot be overestimated, and it must inevitably result in making the subjection of state corporations engaged in interstate trade to the authority of the national government much more complete than it has hitherto been." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Rate Regula tion). In the Central Law Journal (V. bcii, p. 458) Andrew Alexander Bruce collects and discusses the cases on " State Regulation of Railroad Rates and Charges." CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (see Municipal Corporations).

COPYRIGHT. "Literary and Artistic Copyright in the Commonwealth," by Acland Giles, The Commonwealth Law Review (V. iii, P- 145)DIPLOMACY. " Early Diplomatic Negoti ations of the United States with Russia," by John C. Hilat, The Johns Hopkins Press, Bal timore, Md., 1906. DIVORCE. " Antenuptial Agreement Re stricting Right to Divorce," Law Notes (V. x. P-47)DIVORCE. Two articles descriptive of the recent divorce congress appear in the June Yale Law Journal, " The Recent Conference on Divorce," by Talcott H. Russell (V. xv, p. 401), and "The Divorce Congress and Sug gested Improvements in the Statutory Law Relating to Divorce," by C. La Rue Munson (V. xv, p. 405). The latter gives in full the recommendations of the Congress. DIVORCE. Clarence D. Ashley in the June Yale Law Journal ( V. xv, p. 387) writes on " Conflict of Laws upon the Subject of Marriage and Divorce." He discusses briefly the possible unfortunate complications that may arise both under European laws and under the laws of the United States with especial reference to the case of Haddock vs. Haddock. He fears that even if there were uniform state legislation it would be varied by differences of interpretation such as have arisen under the negotiable instrument law. He urges as a solution of the problem the abandonment of the notion that citizenship or residence must play some part in the question of jurisdiction. He would let each state decide for itself upon what terms divorce should be granted, but that personal juris diction of both parties be required. He dismisses the unfortunate situations that would arise from desertion with the remark that " all these unfortunates would in that case have to endure their marriage bonds for the general good of the community." DIVORCE (see Constitutional Law). EQUITY (Trade-Marks). " A Digest of the Law of Trade-Marks and Unfair Trade."