than it was 100 years ago. He says: Presumption of innocence in France is admitted in theory in the "Declaration des Droits de l'Homme," and is inferred, at the present day, in the Code d'Instruction Crimi nelle, but strange to say, in practice inno-cence is not presumed until the contrary has been clearly proved. In other words, the law on this point is not carried out. . . . The Code of Criminal Instruction (Pro cedure), Article 91, authorizes an examining magistrate (Juge d'Instruction) to issue an order for a suspected person to appear be fore him. In practice the suspected person is generally arrested at once and then exam ined by the magistrate. Now the Code dues Tiot intend that anyone should be arrested in this way unless it appears that there is danger of the suspected person evading justice and making good his escape before sufficient evi dence has been collected to proceed to an immediate examination of the suspected per son. Now, on account of there being nothing equivalent to a Habeas Corpus Act, a man once arrested in this way cannot regain his liberty until the examining magistrate pleases. His reputation may lie absolutely ruined and his business utterly destroyed by this detention, but he has no redress. Not •only are the Juges d'Instruction very power ful in the matter of arrest, but the Prefects of Departments (and, at Paris, the Prefect of Police) are clothed with magisterial powers by Art. ID of the Code of Criminal Instruc tion—thus placing the power of arbitrary ar rest in the hands of three classes of public authority—Juges d'Instruction, Prefects of Departments and Prefect of Police. Under the law of 1897, although at the first preliminary investigation of the charge against a suspected person the examining magistrate is not empowered by law to do anything more than establish identity, state the charge and hear what the accused has to say, something very much more than this happens in practice. The magistrate ques tions the accused, confronts him with wit nesses and examines the witnesses. It is not until after all this unlawful proceeding that the lawful (law of 1897) examination begins
277
(assuming that the magistrate decides that a prima facie case is made out). Then for the first time is the accused allowed to have counsel present, but the latter is not allowed to speak "until after having been authorized to do so." There is no cross examination of witnesses allowed at this or any future stage of the prosecution, and to put the accused at a further disadvantage, he is often inter rupted at the examination referred to by, "You did not say that at your preliminary examination." So that the magistrate has a case made out against the accused and the latter is, to a certain extent, already judged, before he comes to trial. OUR Federal immigration officials have never been charged with overscrupulousness in administering the immigration laws in the case of certain classes of immigrants—par ticularly the Chinese; but it is doubtful if they have ever shown greater ingenuity than that displayed by the Australian customs officials in the following case under a law which proscribes the immigration of "Any person who, when asked by an officer, fails to write out at dictation and sign in the pres ence of the officer a passage of fifty words in length in an European language directed by the officer," to which case attention is called by the Australian correspondent of The Law Times. An example of the extreme care with which the educational standard of voluntary or involuntary immigrants into Australia is watched was shown recently in the case of Hans Max Stelling in Newcastle, New South Wales. Hans was the second mate of a German barque, and he had been convicted in Newcastle, during the month of June last, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for stealing some cigars and paint, the prop erty of the captain of his ship. In due course the term of his imprisonment expired, and Hans was discharged from durance vile. But, ere he had gone many yards from the gaol gates, he was again arrested and haled forth with before a customs officer, in order that he might be tested in modern European
