of an asylum for the feeble minded would take into consideration as mitigating or ag gravating the offense, is minutely designated by the code. The trial judge is unable to exercise a wise discretion, so essential to an impartial and exact administration of justice according to the judicial mind of the United States. Instead of being given latitude in the imposition of penalties he is hampered by the innumerable restrictions of this ridi culous code with its senseless minute classi fication. Turning to the tabulated list, we find a. statement of penalties unknown to the American practitioner and which it is devoutly to be hoped will speedily be swept from the statutes, and among them, thirtyfourth on the list, presidio correccional in its minimum degree, denoting imprisonment from 6 months and i day to 2 years and 4 months. The next penalty, thirty-fifth on the table is presidio correccional in its medium degree, or imprisonment for 2 years, 4 months and i day to 4 years and- 2 months. Then comes presidio correccional in its mini mum and medium denoting a term of from 6 months and i day'to 4 years and 2 months; presidio correccional in its medium and maxi mum, 2 years, 4 months and i day to 6 years; presidio correccional in its maximum 4 years, 2 months and i day to 6 years. Then fol lows presidio correccional in its minimum, medium and maximum, mixing in with presidio mayor with its minimum, medium and maximum and arrest mayor, cadena perpetua, cadena temporal, reclusión per petua, reclusión temporal, religación perpetua, relegación temporal, perpetual and temporal expulsión, confiniemento, banishment, public censure, caution, perpetual absolute dis qualification, temporary absolute disqualifi cation, perpetual and temporary, special dis qualification. After the conclusion of the trial it is customary for the fiscal to ask the imposition of a certain penalty, which the counsel for the accused frequently opposes as too severe; then follows a prolonged search through the labyrinth attached to the criminal code to determine the penalty fit ting the transgression, which ought to be
decided by the judge from a comparison and consideration of all the circumstances as shown by the evidence, and from a clearly defined scale embracing a certain number of years as provided by the codes of the several States of the Union. WE return to the Alaska Boundary Com mission (says the Canada Law Journal) mere ly to note that the carrying out of the set tlement arrived at between Lord Alverstone and the United States Commissioners is, in some important respects, virtually impracti cable. In the first place, as Mr. Dalí, the United States expert, in describing the treaty's tortuous and zigzag course, says: "Let any one, with a pair of drawing com passes, having one leg a pencil point, draw this boundary on the United States survey map of Alaska. The result is enough to condemn it. Such a line could not be sur veyed on the land. It crosses itself in many places, and indulges in myriads of knots and triangles. It would be subject to insuper able difficulties, and the survey would cost more than the whole territory cost origi nally." In addition to this the Canadian engineers say that the cost to -Canada for marking this boundary on the territory would be $2,300,000. The United States engineers say that the cost to them would be $2,250,000; moreover, that it would take some fifty years to do the work. This would certainly be a very valuable result, and a nice place it would be for fugitives from justice to play hide and seek in. There is, in addi tion the fact that, as to a portion of the boundary, no settlement whatever has been arrived at. There is, therefore, still a large field for diplomacy to cover. We venture to think, however, that Canada will not then need the services of the learned Chief Jus tice who, last October, ventured to play a lone hand in a game which his opponents did understand. IN the Central Laiv Journal (June 3) Colin P. Campbell discusses the "Propriety of Di rect Evidence of Intention," and savs:
