Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/209

 i86

THE GREEN BAG

details in which the principle of the decision was not always clearly apparent, and there is room for improvement in the titles and arrange ment. But diffuseness and trifling sub-divisions and classifications, and all attempt at making a big and pretentious book should be avoided. A good digest of the volumes 128-208 ought to be contained in two moderate sized volumes. DOMESTIC RELATIONS. "Limitation Applicable to Suits for Restitution of Conjugal Rights," by Durga Charan Bannerjee, Bombay Law Reporter (V. ix, p. 19). DOMESTIC RELATIONS. " Adoption by Hindu Widows," by Sir Edward Candy, Bombay Law Reporter (V. ix, p. 1). EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (Federal Law). Report of the committee appointed at the Conference of Counsel for Railroad Companies on the questions arising under the Act of Congress known as the Employers' Liability Act. The publisher of this pamphlet is not named, but it is signed by the members of the com mittee headed by Henry L. Stone of Louisville, Ky., General Counsel for the Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. It should be consulted in preparing any case under the new act. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY tional Law).

(see. Constitu

EVIDENCE. " Privileged Communications between Attorney and Client," by W. C. Rodgers, Central Law Journal (V. lxiv, p. 66 )r EVIDENCE. " Admissibility, in a Criminal Trial, of the Former Testimony of a Witness, Since Dead," by Walter R. Staples, Virginia Law Register (V. xii, p. 755). FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (State Control). The difficulties and uncertainties in dealing with foreign corporations under our dual sys tem of government are the theme of " The Interstate Commerce Clause and State Control of Foreign Corporations," by Frank E. Robson, in the February Michigan Law Review (V. v, p. 250)" Without undertaking to compare the stat utes of the different states, it is enough to say that it is more difficult for the manufacturer and merchant doing an interstate business to keep himself advised of the details of the laws

relating to foreign corporations than it was for the trader of the early days to keep track of the value of colonial currency, or the mer chant of more recent times to know the value of ' wildcat bank ' bills. This conflict in the statutes and in the decisions of the courts con struing them has had a harmful effect in many ways. Credits have been restricted and sometimes wholly withheld from fear of meet ing a defense of some violation of the local statutes upon an attempt to enforce contracts or payment for goods sold and delivered. A variety of ingenious methods of evading the statutes with more or less success has been evolved. I believe that manufacturers and merchants engaged in interstate commerce, as a whole, would gladly comply with the laws of the different states if they were certain as to what would be required of them, if there was at least a tolerable uniformity in the require ments, and if these statutes were free from dis crimination in favor of domestic corporations. "What is the remedy? Something can be done probably by continued and constant agi tation for the enactment of uniform laws by the several states. Our ' Negotiable Instru ments ' law is a notable instance of what can be accomplished by persistent effort." Mr. Robson thinks much can be done by Congress. Commissioner Garfield has recently favored the requirement of a Federal license to engage in interstate commerce. " The scheme suggested certainly contains many meritorious features, and on the other hand is surrounded by many practical and legal difficulties, which must be met in its actual development. But whether the scheme of a Federal license for corporations engaged in interstate commerce is workable or not, it would seem that valid laws could be enacted along the principles presented by the Railroad Act of 1866 and the so-called Wilson Act of 1890 which would afford protec tion to the corporations engaged in interstate commerce, and at the same time relieve them from the burdens now imposed by the conflict ing acts of the many states and territories. The Railroad Act of 1866 is affirmative and progressive in its nature, abolishing state lines, as it were, and permitting and promoting the formation of continuous lines of transporta tion. The Wilson Act is negative in its char acter, by determining the point at which a