Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/396

 The Green Bag

364

“The three states above mentioned. viz: Wisconsin in 1899. Kansas in 1905, and Illinois in 1907. when they adopted the Act. attempted to avoid certain predicted wrongs to the surety

by introducing somewhat diﬁ'erent phraseology into the sections under examination. But even as between Wisconsin. Illinois and Kansas there is no uniformity. The equitable defences are different in Wisconsin from the equitable defences in Illinois and Kansas. . . . “These variations from the Act in Wisconsin,

Illinois and Kansas are not the only variations. But the writer's purpose is not to em hasize the point that local patchin s and men ings of an act. which is intended to introduce uniform rules of law. defeat the entire program of uniformity. Professor Patten has clearly pointed out and illustrated this unfortunate local tendency. The uestion is. what is to be done to prevent the destruction of the ri hts of the surety on com mercial per? Uni ormity cannot be accom lished g; judicial interpretation of the Act. he question then must be answered, should the

surety's ri hts be saved by supplemental legis lation in tge various states. substituting for the Act the Wisconsin or the Illinois or the Kansas modiﬁcation. or a modiﬁcation different from each? “It is the writer's view that no legislation of the kind should be attempted but that sections 120 and 192 should be totally re led. . . . "Mr. Jeremy Bentham. no dou t, would say, let these pre-existing statutes and the general doctrines of suretyship be all incorporated into a New Comprehensive Code of Suretyship and let that be romulgated by the Commissioners and ado te by the states. Uniform Codiﬁca tion of

uretyshi

is however something much

easier said than tibne. As to the defence based on a request to sue. we must note that all states do not have this statutory defence; and as apart from statute the defence does not generally exist. the enactment of this defense in a code

of suretyship must alter the law now existing in many states. “It is not the writer's purpose to discuss the general question of the feasibility of uniform codiﬁcation either of suretyship or of other branches of the law. Certainly the results of the uniform codiﬁcation of the law of commercial paper cannot be called an auspicious augury for the draftsman of a code of suretyship." See Uniformity of Law. Panama Canal Fortiﬁcation. "The Pana ma Canal and Sea Power in the Paciﬁc." By A. T. Mahan. Century. v. 82. p. 240 (June). "We recognize well. an Australian has recently said. that if the British navy be once overthrown a condition of peace will be that its present power shall not be restored. Vac victis. Defeat of the American navy. followed by a prolonged tenure of parts of American territo. which would then be feasible. might be followe by a demand to give up the Monroe Doctrine, to abandon Panama. to admit immigration to which either our Government or a large part of our popula tion objects. and on no account to attempt the re~establishment of a military or naval

force which could redeem such consequences. So Rome forever disabled Carthage." Penology. “The Cell: A Problem of Prison Science." By Prof. Charles R. Henderson. 2 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 56 (May) A valuable article on the ideal prison cell. the relative merits of the separate and common life systems receiving attention, and important

documents being summarized. There is a detailed description of the typical modern systems. the English cell being fully described. “It may be fairly concluded from all the data at hand that it is the concensus of the well informed that the separate system should be used exclusively in all county jails and city lockups. places of detention for prisoners await ing trial. It would seem reasonable under any form of the Auburn system which revails with us, to provide separate cells for a ut ten per cent of the population in order that the warden or su rintendent might be able to employ indivi ual treatment as the peculiarities of prisoners require. “It is worth considering whether in the case of very lon sentences the prisoner might have his choice 0? common life or individual cell after a certain period. Since. under any system. the cell is the essential unit of the rison. its structure and furniture. even to the minute details. must be carefully studied in the light of the widest experience. ment and for Some experiment of themay materials be brieﬂy for outlined a judg~ in this connection." “The International Union of Criminal Law." By Dr. I. A. Van Hamel. 2 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 22 (May). Groups of the International Union of Criminal Law. organized in 1888. are in existence in the chief Continental countries of Europe. The resident of the American group is Prof. Charles 5. Henderson of Chicago. The chief problems that have been dealt with in the discussions of this useful organization are indicated. “More and more the methods of dealing with classes of criminals in a satisfactory way has become the piece dc résistance on the programs of the International Union. Finally. quite a detailed system of preventive and curative institutions has been worked out (Conference at Hamburg. 1907). But here diﬂicult and funda

mental questions are still waiting their solution. especially this one: How far may legislation go in determining a state of dangerousness to the common safety (élal dangereux, Gemeinge fdhrlichkeit). which would justify the conﬁne ment of a person whether he be delinquent or not? On this subject there has been a very remarkable and lasting difference of opinion among the members of the Union; remarkable

because it is connected with a difference of polit ical and fundamental philosophical convictions. It is not b accident that especially the German members, ed by von Liszt. are declaring them selves in

favor of rigorous and

determined

though humane measures against this class of offenders. On the contrary, the French Group,