Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/631

 Index to Periodicals Legislative Procedure. “The Syndication of the Speakership." By C. R. Atkinson and C. A. Beard. Political Science Quarterly, v. 26, p. 381 (Sept.). The writers review the ‘parliamentary practice of the National House 0 Representatives from the ﬁrst, and describe the dramatic develop ments leading to the Speaker's being deprived of the power he had previously exerted through the Committee on Rules. They think it too early to determine whether the new arrangement will meet the test of efﬁciency. How strong a directing body it may produce, in the Committee on Rules, and how successfully the system may meet parliamentary situations as they arise, only the future can determine. Local Government.

See

Direct Govern

ment. Monopolies. “The Father of the Anti-Trust Law." By Francis E. Leupp. Outlook, v. 99, p. 271 (Sept. 30). "Looking over the legislative record, we ﬁnd that what we know as the Sherman act is not a Sherman act at all. Mr. Sherman had nothing whatever to do with it beyond holding a place for it on the Senate calendar by putting in an impossible bill of his own. If it is to be named in honor of anyone, its proper title is the Edmunds Anti-Trust Act." Neutralization. “Some Effects of Neutrali zation." By Cyrus F. Wicker. 5 Journal of International Law 639 (July). "Permanent neutrality has developed out of a privilege, applied to sin le states. into a power available to the peace- oving, colony-holding nations of today. It can no longer be misjudged as a restriction upon free development. It has been seen that neutralized states may erect fortresses in their own defense, that they may enter into alliances except those for purposes of offensive war, that they may direct their internal affairs exclusive of forei n control, that they

may acquire colonies, an ﬁnally that they may conclude treaties for commerce and friendly trade. . . . “Neutralization is the remedy lying ready to our hands for removing not only the causes of war, but also the intolerable burdens of armed

peace. There is no loss of honor to a state in accepting neutralization and no occasion for shame in granting it to colonial possessions. . . . South America in particular may propose it for one or all of her states, and b

union in this

respect maintain before the worl any principle of permanent neutrality to which she wholly gave her an port. Not only would her growing nations be I'reed from the crippling burdens of competitive militarism, but also, once prejudices and the fear of ag ression removed, a way would be opened to a riendly and far more stable relationship toward all the world which could not fail to meet with the approval of the Powers. This result in the futherance of national develop ment and international peace would be inesti mable; it is also possible."

See Panama Canal Fortiﬁcation.

591

Old Age Relief (Contributory). “Com. pulsory Old-Age Insurance in France." By I. M. Rubinow. Political Science Quarterly, v. 26, p. 500 (Sept.).

The law of 1910 is explained in detail, as "marking an im rtant advance in French social legislation.’ Earlier bills are described by way of introduction. Panama Canal Fortiﬁcation. "The Canal Fortiﬁcations and the Treaty." By Crammond Kennedy. 5 Journal of International Law 620

(J 111)’) “The right of the United States to fortify the canal, as deﬁned by herself in her treaty with Panama, is expressl conditional, and may never need to be exercise

if the condition is observed,

as it ought to be, by the parties concerned." The writer makes a strong plea for neutrali zation. "If, notwithstanding such examples of neutral ization as Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg

the Black Sea, the Straits of Magellan and the Suez Canal, we have no faith in the honor or common sense of nations, and if we are not

willing to depend upon the eﬂiciency of our navy, we might at least postpone the mounting of the guns on the fortiﬁcations of the canal until Admiral Mahan's hypothetical power or the President's ‘irresponsible force or nation‘ shows some sign of its existence and of its intention to challenge the civilization of the age by attacking or interfering with the use of the waterway between the two oceans." See Neutralization. "The Right to Fortify the Panama Canal." By Prof. Eugene Wambaugh. 5 Journal of International Law 615 (July). Professor Wambaugh, brieﬂy reviewing treaty stipulations and Lord Lansdowne's memorandum on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, concludes that the United States has a clear legal right to fortify the canal, but he intimates that a larger ques tion of public policy remains. Procedure. “Law and Equity in the Federal Courts—Abolishing the Distinction and Other Reforms." By Prof. Roscoe Pound. 73 Central Law Journal 204 (Sept. 22). From a searching examination of decisions of the Supreme Court Professor Pound draws these conclusions: — “(1) The Constitution gives the courts both legaland equitable jurisdiction, that is, the power to give_ both legal and equitable remedies, so that neither may be taken away by legislation. "(2) . The Constitution preserves a right to a jury trial of legal issues triable only in an action at law under the common law, which cannot be taken away, though it may be waived by the party entitled. “(3)

If the remedies and the right so secured

are not taken away or impaired, the mere man ner in which the remedy shall be sought and the issue to be tried shall be presented is subject to legislative control.