Rditorial Department. ers, with a view of supplying them, they be come contraband." In accordance with such ideas, coal has been listed by the British Admiralty as "conditional contraband." The same conclusion has been reached by our own government, and the Naval War Code declares coal conditionally contraband "when destined for a naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy-" The United States enjoyed the benefit of the English regulation in the matter of the Geneva award, in which it was held that "if an excessive supply of coal is connected with other circumstances which show that it was used as a veritable res hostilis, then there is an infraction of the second article of the treaty. Germany, going even further than the United States and Great Britain, maintained during the war of 1870, with France, that the English government should not only regard as contraband all cargoes of coal bound for the French fleet in the North Sea, but that all exports of coal to French ports should be prohibited. It should be specially noted, however, that some European countries have always assumed a contrary position. In 1859, France declared that coal was not contra band, and she repeated that assertion in 1870. Among those who upheld her in that contention may be mentioned Russia, who, during the West African Conference at Ber lin in 1884, vigorously protested against the inclusion of coal among articles contraband of war, declaring that she (Russia), would "categorically refuse her consent to any arti cles in any treaty, convention, or instrument whatever, which would imply its recognition" as contraband. But this view appears to have been adandoned, for the Russian rules of war, published officially at St. Petersburg on February 28th last (printed in New York Times of 29th), contain the following clause (H. of Rule VI): "Every kind of fuel, such as coal, naphtha, spirits, etc., will be regarded as contraband of war." LAWRENCE IRWELL. Buffalo, N. Y., May 5, 1904.
413 NEW LAW BOOKS.
It is the intention of The Green Bag to have its book review's written by compétent reviewers. The usual custom of magazines is to confine book notices to books sent in for review. At the request of subscribers, however, The Green Bag will be glad to rcviezv or notice any recently published laiv book whether received for review or not.
FEDERAL EQUITY PROCEDURE : A Treatise on the Procedure in Equity in the Circuit Courts of the United States, including Appeals and Appellate Procedure. By C. L. Bates. 2 Vois. Chicago: T. H. F.qod, and Company. 1901. (lxii.-f-i4O9 pp.) A book published in 1901 can hardly be called a new law book. At any rate it should not call for extended notice, but the genuine excellence of Mr. Bates' work and the fur ther fact, that it has not been reviewed in the columns of THE GREEN BAG may well justify a word of hearty praise. The abolition of the system of common law and equity pleading has not destroyed the fundamental distinction, even in code States, between law and equity, although a simplified and single form of action has taken the place of the former elaborate and scien tific forms of pleading in common law and equity courts. The knowledge of strict com mon law pleading is admittedly a great and abiding service even in code States, and this is equally true of equity pleading. It is, in deed, truer of the latter than of the former; for equity pleading in its technical provision and refinement subsists in .our Federal Courts, uninfluenced by its recent modifica tions in England, from which the system was derived, and by its non-existence in many of the States of the American Union. The history of equity procedure in the United States may be given in a few words, preferably taken from Mr. Bates (Sects. 13, 14, 15, 16): "The act of May 8, 1792, auth orized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules to the circuit and district courts in suits in equity and admiralty, and this authority was employed and expanded by subsequent
