Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/310

 Review of Periodicals pany law for Egypt, and that requires the consent of the powers which have Capitula tions with the Ottoman Empire." The writer proposes that the Mixed Courts be invested with criminal jurisdiction to be exercised under an amended Mixed Penal Code, and that the Commercial Code be amended so as to define the rights and liabili ties of companies whether incorporated in Egypt or abroad. See Interstate Commerce, Monopolies, Pub lic Service Corporations, etc. Defamation. "Absolute Privilege for Licens ing Justices." By Ernest E. Williams. 25 Law Quarterly Review 188 (Apr.). "Absolute immunity from the consequences of defamation is so serious a derogation from the citizen's right to the state's protection of his good name that its existence at all can only be conceded in those few cases where overwhelmingly strong reasons of public policy of another kind cut across this elementary right of civic protection; and any extension of the area of immunity must be viewed with the most jealous suspicion, and resisted, unless its necessity is demonstrated." Divorce. See Marriage and Divorce. Domicil. "Trade Domicil in War: A Re ply." By J. Westlake, K.C. Journal of Comparative Legislation, No. xx, p. 265 (Apr.) . In this article Professor Westlake meets the criticisms directed against his views by Dr. J. Baty, in the last issue of this journal. See Conflict of Laws. Fixtures. "Trade Fixtures, in Condemna tion." By Benno Lewinson. 17 Bench and Bar 24 (Apr.). Discussing the recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of The City of New York, Conron v. Glass, 192 N. Y. 295. The writer deduces three rules regarding the measure of compensation, and adds :— "The 'value of the use' of a set of trade fixtures can be readily determined by ascer taining the difference between the rental value of the demised premises for the balance of the term of the lease, as equipped for the purposes of the tenant's business, and the rent reserved in the lease for the premises without such equipment. Such difference comprises the value of the unexpired term of the lease itself, as well as the 'value of the use' of the tenant's trade fixtures: for both of which items the tenant is entitled to an award." Government. "The Jurisdiction of State and Federal Courts over Federal Officers." By James L. Bishop. 9 Columbia Law Review 397 (May). "The mutual relations between the state and federal courts have come to be regarded as the subject of critical and scientific study rather than of partisan or local debate. The result of all this is that there is not now any substantial difference of opinion as to the

287

desirability of giving the federal courts power to bring every subject relating to the func tions of the federal government, and the per formance of their duties by federal officers, in the first instance within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. At the same time the extension of the activities of the national government and the large increase in the number of federal officers require that the remedies of the individual against the abuse of power by such officers should be carefully secured. Another question affecting the distribution of powers in the frame of government pro vided for by the Constitution is discussed in the following:— i "The Extent of the Treaty-Making Power of the President and Senate of the United States—II." By William E. Mikell. 57 Univ. of Pa. Law Review 528 (May). The second and concluding article on the subject. See 21 Green Bag 231 (May). The writer here considers the power of the Presi dent and Senate to make a treaty invading the rights reserved to the people by the first ten amendments of the Constitution. "It appears that in every case that has come before the Supreme Court where re served rights other than those involved in Chirac v. Chirac, Hughes v. Edwards, and Hauenstein v. Lynham [have been considered] those judges who have discussed the question have either expressly denied, or have ques tioned, the power of the federal government by treaty to infringe the reserved rights of the states; and that in discussing the question neither the judges nor counsel have cited Chirac v. Chirac, Hughes v. Edwards, or Hauenstein v. Lynham, as authority for the doctrine that the reserved rights of the states were subject to the treaty-making power. It also appears that while all of the judges who sat in Holmes v. Jennison, the License Cases and the Passenger Cases, did not, in any one of those cases, hold that the reserved rights of the states were exempt from the treatymaking power, yet all of the nine judges, who sat in those cases, did in one of the three hold that the reserved rights were exempt. It is therefore submitted, in view of these facts, that the doctrine that the treatypower is supreme over the reserved rights of the states is by no means established in our jurisprudence. . . . "The question whether by the reservation of the power to make agreements, with the consent of Congress, the states intended to deprive the federal government of the power to make treaties concerning their reserved rights, has never been raised in the courts." British Empire. "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council." By J. M. Clark, K.C. 29 Canadian Law Times 340 (Apr.). "I do not overlook the great services to Canada rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of the United States has also done great work for that country, but on several occasions it would