Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/395

 363

Index to Periodicals ‘pre-ascertain’ and ﬁx upon what is actually a penalty under the guise of liquidated damages." Maritime Law. "The Declaration of Lon don, I." By G. D. Valentine. 23 Juridical Review 1 (Apr.).

"The manner in which various persons will regard these rules will depend, to some extent, on the preconceptions with which they approach them. There are some who consider it the interest of this country [Great Britain] to pre serve an absolutely free hand in naval war. Those who regard all law as evil will naturally not except the rules laid down in the Declaration from the general ban; it pleases them little to think that the age of anarchy is past. Others again,

and

particularly

such

as

have

their

livelihood in commerce, will be disposed to regret that the abolition at least of conditional contraband has not been secured; they must remember, however, that this could only be

done by general consent, which at present it is utterly vain to hope for, and may console themselves with the homely proverb that half a loaf is better than no bread. The Declaration does not seem to us substantially to modify the law of contraband, as recognized by the best authorities prior to its promul ation. It makes it perfectly clear that a beligerent who has formed the design of reducing the enemy nation by famine, unless in the inconceivable case of

his being strong enough to form an effective

that the International Prize Court should not decide any question which is not covered by the Declaration until agreement has been reached on it. That would remove one great objection to ratiﬁcation. It would certainly be reasonable to have an express understanding as to the meaning of article 34 and the ports to which it is intended to apply. If the meaning is as clear as is suggested in some quarters, there can be no difficulty in obtaining an assur ance upon the point satisfactory to Great Britain. That would remove a second great objection." See International Law of War.

Marriage and Divorce. "A Proposed Uniform Marriage Law." By Ernst Freund. 24 Harvard Law Review 548 (May). A detailed exposition of the Act proposed by the Conference on Uniform State Laws. Mining Law. "An Anomaly in Mining Law." By Hon. Theodore Brantley. 20 Yale Law Jour nal 548 (May). "The local courts, confronted with declaration

so emphatically made by the Supreme Court in many cases, that the statute must be the sole

guide in determining the rights of mineral claimants, are often at a loss in the effort to

determine cases for which the statute seems to make no provision because their occurrence was not anticipated when the statute was enacted.

blockade of the whole coasts of his adversary,

It is not surprising, therefore, that there should

cannot, in pursuance of that design, hinder neutral ships from bringing in grain to its com

be conﬂicting views. . . . The failure of Congress to make speciﬁc provision for the disposition of these irregularly-shaped areas gives rise to these anomalies, and has tempted the courts to supplement the statute by judicial legislation, although the authority to do so is consistentl disavowed. Would it not have been better if t e court of last resort had adhered

mercial ports.

This, however, was law before,

though it was satisfactory to have the bad pre cedent we mentioned ﬁnally disposed of; more over, it is extremely doubtful whether there is

any case in which the question could be of practical importance. To those who think that the Declaration regarding contraband would hamper the operations of our ﬂeet in case of Great Britain being involved in war, we would point out that it is not so favorable to the neutral as the rules which our Government has for the last ﬁfty ears been upholding, and must in all good faith consent to be bound by in her own conduct. Those who complain that the Declara tion is too stringent should reﬂect that all the principal Continental Powers, whose attitude is most practically important to us as neutrals, maintain and enforce severe rules. Di loma tists ma perhaps succeed in modifying t e text of this Declaration in some future conference,

when experience has shown in what ways it is defective, and when the feeling against inter ference with neutral commerce has grown stronger. The existence of a document on which to work does not in our eyes render amendment of maritime law less, but rather more, easy. If, however, the present Declaration fail to meet with approval, it is certain that for a long time to come all will despair of reaching, and none will venture to seek for, agreement; every nation must remain a law unto itself." “The Declaration of London." Quarterly Review, v. 201, no. 427, p. 539 (Apr.).

"It would certainly be reasonable to propose

strictly to the rule, so often theretofore declared,

that the statute is the only guide, and have left it to the Congress to supply its deﬁciency by additional legislation?" Monopolies.

"Extra-Territorial

Effect

of

the Sherman Act: American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company." By Warren B. Hunting. 6 Illinois Law Review 34 (May). Negotiable Instruments.

"The Uniform

Negotiable Instruments Law: is it Producing Uniformity and Certainty in the Law Mer chant?" By Crawford D. Hening. 59 Univ. of Pa. Law Review 532 (May). "Absolute uniformity could not be attained even by a harmony of judicial interpretations of Sections 119, 120 and 192. Three states, Wisconsin, Illinois and Kansas, never adopted

sections 119, 120 and 192 in the form adopted by the other states. These three states were inﬂuenced to adopt a modiﬁcation of the sec tions in question by the criticism of the Act offered by Professor Ames, who predicted in 1900 that very eclipse of the surety’s rights accomplished over seven years later by the Act in the ﬁve states of Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Ohio.