EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT ternational agreement, classifying contraband definitely and completely. . . . "The relevancy of the question of contra band to the subject of our enquiry is this. It appears to me that, if the arbitrary decision of any belligerent (as is at present the case) may include every important article of com merce, such as provisions, trade materials, fuel, etc., in the list of contraband, little can be gained by a general exemption of private property from capture at sea. It appears to me also, that it conceivably might make a great difference to the view which some nations would be willing to adopt in regard to the proposed change, if it were definitely settled law that some, at any rate, of the principal articles of sea-borne com merce, and, especially, food for human con sumption and the raw materials required by peaceful industries, could never lawfully be treated as contraband of war unless the captor could show that the particular cargo was des tined for use for naval or military purposes of the enemy either in the region of actual operation or elsewhere. "And, further, with the question of the exemption of enemy's private property from capture at sea. should there not be considered the property of a definite pronouncement that the bombardment by naval forces of defence less and unfortified towns and places on the sea coast, or the threat of such bombardment in order to secure the levy of contributions or compliance with requisitions should be for bidden? Some jurists, I believe, hold that by the tacit consent of nations, such conduct has already come into the category of forbidden operations. I cannot see sufficient justifica tion for the view. ... It is highly desirable the matter should be finally concluded by common agreement. The settlement of this question as well as the classification of con traband might do something, at any rate, to influence favorably some of the maritime pow ers in their consideration of the immunity of private property at sea as a question of policy. "Lastly, I venture to add that, although agreement as to a general immunity of private property of the enemy at sea may prove to be impossible, the collected representatives of the various members of the family of nations might be asked to consider whether some
57
modification of the present system might not advantageously be adopted, in the form of a particular exemption in favor of the vessels of the great steamship lines which carry mails and passengers everywhere along established routes, and upon whose continued regularity of service the intercourse and intercommuni cation of large portions of the globe are abso lutely dependent. Effective guarantees must, of course, be taken against abuse of such a peculiar freedom, but it ought not to be im possible to frame such guarantees. It cannot be doubted that the arrangement would con fer a very great boon upon mankind." JURISPRUDENCE. " The Power to Regu late Corporations and Commerce: A Discussion of the Existence, Basis, Nature and Scope of the Common Law of the United States," by Frank Hendrick. 8vo, pp. Ixxii, 516, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1906. The sub-title of this book reads: " A dis cussion of the existence, basis, nature and scope of the Common Law of the United States," yet though much space and appar ently much painstaking effort have been de voted to the establishing of this thesis, viz: that there is a " Federal common law," the author has treated somewhat inadequately the leading case of Western Union Telegraph Company v. Call Publishing Co., 181 U. S. 92; and has cited it to support a proposition which a careful reading and analysis seems hardly to justify. Though he shows a con siderable acquaintance with much of the case law dealing with questions of constitutional law and conflict of laws, and cites some two thousand cases, he seems to have been led away by his zeal to establish his thesis, and the cases cited as authority cannot always be relied upon to bear out the statement in the text. The author shows much industry and learn ing, but it may be questioned if a great deal of the material is not extraneous and some what remote. It would seem that the power to regulate corporations and commerce could be discussed without giving the history of the Germanic comitatus, the Anglo-Saxon Witanagemot or the law reforms of Henry II. The plan of development of the subject is not entirely clear, and logical development is
