EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT Northern Securities Case" is explained to English readers by William Mitchell Acworth in the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation (No. xiv, p. .251). His most in teresting suggestion to American readers is that while it may have been important to the government to impress upon one benevolent despot in the railroad world that his power was not unlimited, and though the repression of such a combination might be of importance in the western states it is hardly to be ex pected that similar prosecutions will be en forced against the old consolidations in the «ast. INTERNATIONAL LAW (History). "The Development of International Law before Grotius " is the subject of a brief contribution by Edwin Maxey to the September American Law Review (V. xxxix, p. 747). "With the Greeks," he says "international law was for a long time a code of rules mainly for the purpose of governing the relations of their own communities with each other. The Amphictyonic council served to some extent as an international court," but "it had no power to settle differences between Greek and other independent states." Even between themselves their rules were very limited in scope, relating chiefly to right of sanctuary, inviolability of envoys, and rules of war. Rome did little in the actual development of a system for in theory at least, during a considerable portion of its existence, the Roman Empire was uni versal. The mediaeval maritime codes were the first steps toward modern international law. Vasquez first put forth "the doctrine of the existence of a group of states subjects of reciprocal rights irrespective of a world empire, temporal or ecclesiastical." Suarez followed with a theory of a law of nations resting upon custom. The greatest of these, however, was Albericus Gentilis, who at tempted "to adjust the principles of the jus naturale to the new fact of territorial sover eignty." JURISDICTION (See Conflict of Laws and Constitutional Law). JURISPRUDENCE, COMPARATIVE (Con stitutional Law). An interesting Compara tive Study of the Constitutions of the United States of America and the United States of Mexico," by William H. Burges appears in
665
the September American Law Review (V. xxxix, p. 711). The political framework of each is very similar. "Each recognizes, as the basis of govern mental authority, the consent of the gov erned. Each divides the functions of govern ment into legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and each attempts to prevent the encroachment of one department on the other. Each looks to the formation in a federal government of an indestructible union com posed of indestructible states, and each pro vides for safe-guarding the autonomy of the states within the union." The powers of the House and Senate are in general like those of ours." An original feature is a sort of select com mittee of the two houses of the legislature which exercises authority during the recess of Congress. "Briefly stated, the powers of the execu tives of the two countries are the same. There are minor differences in the terms of the grants of power and the methods of administration; but nothing of substantial importance distin guishes one from the other in theory. In practical operation the differences are very great. In practice the power of the Mexican president is apparently autocratic. A careful study of their constitution discloses no warrant for this, and I attribute so much of it as is real rather than seeming to the deep and abiding hold which their present chief executive has upon the hearts and minds of the Mexican people, and their faith in his wisdom and his loyalty to their welfare." "Again speaking generally the jurisdiction of the Mexican federal courts extends to all matters of which our federal courts have jurisdiction, except that they have not juris diction of causes arising under their federal Constitution, and laws which affect private interests only, that jurisdiction being vested in the state courts; nor have the Mexican federal courts jurisdiction of causes on the ground of diverse citizenship, while the juris diction over controversies between a state and a citizen of another state, which is expressly denied by our nth Amendment, exists under their system." "Under this grant of jurisdiction and for the protection of these rights the courts hold
