Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/363

 Review of Periodicals

341

have enerally gone beyond the actual issue, and, oiten using the term ‘criticism’ as synony mous with dero to statements of fact, have expressed t dictum that criticism is privileged, or not actionable, so long as it does not attack the private character of the person criticized, or impute evil motives. In

Golden Gate would shoal up if the cuttin of timber in the Sierras were unchecked. An will the champions of ‘conservation’ claim that the federal overnrnent has greater rights and powers in t e newer states than in the older ones?" See also Federal Incorporation, Govern

other words, while the actual decision is gen

ment.

erally unimpeachable, the foundation is delu sive, 11s., a distinction is between comment and statement of fact. While this doctrine recognizes some latitude in the discussion of matters of public interest, its practical futility is shown by the conflicting and sometimes fanciful ideas of the sort of imputations which are held to fall within it. "This doctrine, so far as it is intelligible, would seem to leave little, if any, more prac

tical freedom in the discussion of matters of public interest than that which is permitted in the discussion of the conduct of a private person. It leaves the law very much in the attitude of saying, ‘You have full libert of discussion, provided, however, you say not 'ng that counts.’ "Other and more carefully considered cases are in substantial agreement with the pre vailing English doctrine." The author's footnote citations in the fore going extracts are omitted. Federal and State Powers. "The Other Side of Conservation." By George L. Knapp North American Review, v. 191, p. 465 (Apr)

"Here, then, we have a system which throughout its sphere of action ham rs all forms of industrial develo ment. e have an area larger than many a uropean kingdom put to its lowest, instead of its highest eco nomic use. We have a policy which is an absolute reversal of more than one hundred years of national habit and tradition; a policy which holds barrenness a blessing and settle ment a sin; which ﬁnes, instead of encourag ing, the man who would develop a natural resource; which looks forward to a population of tenants instead of to a p‘opulatron of ro prietors; which seeks to rep ce the indivi ual initiative that has made our land great by a bureaucratic control that has made many another land small. Surely, the danger must be imminent and terrible which is held to justify such a course. . . . "It is no more a part of the federal govern ment's business to enter upon the commercial production of lumber than to enter upon the commercial roduction of wheat, or breakfast bacon, or nd-saws. The judiciary com mittee of the Sixtieth Congress, reporting on the proposed Appalachian reserve. declared that the sole ground on which Congress could embark in the forest business was the protec tion of navigable streams. Will any one pretend that a forest reserve on the crest of the Rocky Mountains, with the nearest navi ble water a thousand miles away, can be rou ht under this clause? Even on the Paci c 510

, I have not heard that the lumber

mills of ashington have seriously impaired the navigability of Puget Sound; nor that the

Federal Incorporation. "State and Federal Control of Corporations." By Frederick H.

Cooke.

23 Harvard Law Review 456 (Apr.).

"Of late there has been no little discussion whether there is any advantage in the crea tion of corporations under the authority of Congress. As already noted, there are several instances of such creation for the purpose of engaging in commerce or transportation as carriers. So far as concerns the application of the commerce clause, the writer is not aware that such a corporation enjoys any substantial advantage, or is, for that matter,

subject to any substantial disadvantage, as compared wit co rations created by the states. There has 11 little or no utiliza tion of such power of Congress to create a corporation for the purpose of transporting as a shipper through the agency of carriers. The exercise of power for that pu se was recentl advocated by the learned ttorney Genera, who says :— “Such corporations formed under national law would not be foreign corporations in any of the states. and would therefore be at liberty to trans act their business without state permision and free from state interference. . . . If, now, Con gress shall enact a law providing for national incorporation to carry on interstate commerce, subject to such restrictions and with such freedom from local state control as Congress shall see ﬁt to prescribe, the state control of foreign corporations, in all probability, will soon cease to be a subject of great importance.

"But if the views already stated are correct, this conclusion seems insufficiently justified. So far as concerns commerce or transporta

tion within the scope of the commerce clause, even corporations created b the states are ‘at liberty to transact their business without state permission and free from state inter ference.‘ On the other hand, it remains to be established that a corporation created by Congress, at any rate one created to engage in trans rtation merely as a shipper, is not, to use t e language of Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., as to business done wholly within the state, subject to the control of the state ‘in all matters of taxation, rates, and other police regulations.’" “The Right to Engage in Interstate and Foreign Commerce as an Individual or as a Corporation." By Frederick H. Cooke. 8 Michigan Law Review 458 (Apr.).

“It seems not easy to accept on principle the conclusion that the mere power to regu late commerce or transportation includes the power to create a corporation for the purpose of engaging therein. Yet, as a matter of