The Green Bag
142
taken to provide liens, not only for necessaries, but for many other claims known to the mari time law. in so far as these statutes attem t to confer a lien when one is already given by the general maritime law, they are, strictly speak ing, of no efl'ect. And when they attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the maritime law beyond the limits fixed by the Supreme Court they are unconstitutional under the decision in The Roanoke (189 U. S. 185)." Master and Servant. “Liability of Master for Wilful or Malicious Acts of Servants, II."
By Floyd R. Mechem. 9 Michigan Law Re view 181 (Jan). Concluding installment of an able article on the doctrine of the non-liability of the master (see 23 Green Bag 95).
Mining. "What Questions of Mining Law have been Decided in the Litigation Over the Drum Lummon Lode or Vein." By John B. Klayberg. 20 Yale Law Journal 191 (Jan). Treatin of the questions determined by the Supreme ourt of the United States and by the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in this litiga tion.
Mohammedan Law. "A Historical Study of Mohammedan Law, I." By Syed H. R. Abdul Majid. 27 Law Quarterly Review 28 (Jan.). torical A very sketch. lucid, readable and intelligent his~
"German and British Experience with Trusts." By Gilbert Holland Montague. Atlantic, v. 107, p. 155 (Feb.).
"The British attitude toward trusts has never been hostile. The Industrial Commission of the United States found that, aside from the universal phenomenon of hostility among a few radicals against every kind of wealth, no antip athy existed against trusts, and that ‘the strong feeling on the subject, which has been mani fested for some years in the United States, seems to have found only a very faint echo in England.’ Trusts have never been a political issue in Great Britain.
On the whole, the British view their
trust development with complacency and satis faction. The secret of this peace and content ment — so contrasted with the political and industrial turmoil in which the anti-trust crusade has plunged our own country—is not hard to find. While Congress and the various state legislatures were enacting the most stringent legislation to repress the trust movement, the English were recognizin and accepting the economic necessity of com ination." "The Great Express Monopoly." By Albert W. Atwood. American Magazine, v. 71, p. 427 (Feb.). The small capital and large profits of the ex press companies, and situation in their affairs which government investigations have dis closed, form the subject of this article, which
trated by the German law recently enacted. to
is to be followed by one on the relations between these companies and the railways. See Corporations. Newfoundland Fisheries Arbitration. "The North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration." By Ed win M. Borchardt. 11 Columbia Law Review 1 (Jan). A summary of the circumstances givin rise to the dispute and of the grounds on whi the principal points were determined. Panama Canal Fortification. "The Forti fication of the Panama Canal." By H. A. Austin. Forum, v. 45, p. 129 (Feb.). A lucid summing up of the arguments for and against, by a writer well qualified to discuss the question both from the standpoint of public policy and of military expediency. He says: — "It is believed that, despite assertions to the contrary, there is no limitation upon the power and right of this Government to erect fortifica tions on the waterway should it see fit to do so. The public press of Great Britain admits that that Government has tacitly consented to such action by the United States, although censuring the Administration for its weakness in abro gating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. While the Republic of Panama may now take the view that no right to fortify the canal in time of peace was granted to the United States under the Hay Buneau-Varilla treaty, it is not conceivable that this country must wait until the actual neces sity — war —- exists before taking steps to secure its defence and protection. With no other country than these two has the United States any
restrict the over-production of potash
treaty affecting the Panama Canal; there is no
Monopolies. "The Law of Combined Action or Possession." By Frederic J. Stimson. 45 American Law Review 1 (]an.-Feb.). A scholarly review of the common law of combinations, as embraced in the old law of monopoly and of conspiracy. Prof. Stimson concludes: ~ "We should think long and carefully before we abandon this great principle of our English law greventing the oppression of the individual by t e multitude, and, in the law of combina tion, going directly to the ethical motive of the combine. It has been a commonplace of lay men critics that the law is not moral — that it does not go into the higher issues—that it is easy to keep within the letter of the law while
morally guilty to one's neighbor or to the state. This is not true of our law of combination. Let us, therefore, not carelessly give up this one great domain of the law of private right, which,
based both on our English history and the pro foundest laws of economy at the same time,
rises to the highest standard of duty to one's neighbor and to the state; the one great body of the common law based squarely on the Golden Rule." “Nationalism and Special Privilege." By Theodore Roosevelt.
Outlook, v. 97, p. 145
(Jan. 28). The third of Mr. Roosevelt's editorials on the general subject of “Nationalism and Progress." He here suggests that the problem of regula tion of monopoly is solved by the method illus
