Review of Periodicals panies," by G. Carroll Todd. Harvard Law Review (vol. xxii, p. 114). Mr. Todd contends that it is a violation of the Anti-Trust Act, because destructive of competition and promotive of monopoly, for one of two competing railroads to acquire any shares whatever of the other. This was the common law, which Congress has made, "with widened scope, the very law of the United States." Practice. "The Delays of the Law," by William Howard Taft. Yale Law Journal (vol. xviii, p. 28). President-elect Taft's address before the Virginia Bar Association, August 6, 1908. Railroad Regulation. "Railroads: National vs. State Control," by Hiram Glass. American Law Review (vol. xlii, p. 848). Starting with the premise "that the coun try is now thoroughly committed to the policy of control and regulation of railroad rates through the instrumentality of commissions created for that purpose," the author thinks the question has become this: Which com mission, state or national? In this article which was read before the Texas State Bar Association, July 7, 1908, Mr. Glass takes the ground that only national control will give effective supervision. State control means endless confusion and complexity, of which he gives illustrations, due to differences be tween state laws. "The railroads are, in fact, national in scope and character, and why should they not be so recognized by law?" Rate Regulation. "Commutation Tickets and Rate Regulation," by Bor den D. Whiting. Columbia Law Review (vol. viii, p. 636). Arguing that even under the apparently sweeping power of ratemaking given by the Hepburn bill the Interstate Commerce Com mission is under certain limitations, notably in the case of commutation tickets. The posi tion is taken that a carrier may arbitrarily increase or cut off such rates. The author bases this on the decision of the commission in Sprigg v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. (1900), 1 I. C. C. Rep. 443, which says, "We could not under any circumstances compel the granting of a special and lower rate for
29
the benefit of a particular class." This con clusion is supported by Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Smith (1899), 173 U. S. 684. Subsequent cases to the same effect are also cited. Suretyship (Rights of Surety). "The Cancellation of Depository Bonds," by Luther E. Mackall. American Law Re view (vol. xlii, p. 820). "During the financial panic of October, 1907, after a number of banks and trust companies in New York and elsewhere had closed their doors, . . . several of the surety companies, having on their books some de pository bonds, without provision for can cellation, on banks of doubtful financial strength, began to send telegrams broadcast over the country demanding that the re spective obligees withdraw all funds covered by the bonds, and notifying them that unless they did so the surety would not be liable in case of the subsequent insolvency of the depository. "This is believed to have been the first attempt to cancel depository bonds in this manner, it having been generally supposed that unless a depository bond contained a provision for cancellation or there was some statutory provision therefor, the liability con tinued until the obligee saw fit to withdraw the funds, or until the bond expired by its own limitation. . . . "Inasmuch as the right to cancel a de pository bond is one of the important ele ments in determining its desirability as a risk, it is evident that the correct solution of this question is important to surety com panies." Mr. Mackall examines the question in the light of the legal and equitable rules of surety ship; his analysis would require too much space for this department. His conclusion, however, is that on the whole— "The power of a surety on a depository bond to cancel it, without a provision to that effect in the bond, is so questionable that it would be unwise for surety companies to write such bonds on the assumption that they can be thus canceled." Waste. "Liability for Waste. II," by George W. Kirchwey. Columbia Law Review (vol. vii, p. 624). This concluding article deals with the his tory and present state of the modern English doctrine on the subject.
