648
The Green Bag
ian humor, however, will out, as when the
satisfying federal legislation at the present time,
prisoner is made to exclaim: — "Hcvidence? Call that hevidenoe? Why, it was bloomin' lies — bloomin' lies and hevidence." "The Judgment of Pantagruel." By Francois
even if a constitutional amendment could be
Rabelais. (Extract in the Series, "Law from Lay Classics") 6 Illinois Law Review 189 (Oct.).
"Agitation for Marriage and Divorce. Reform of Divorce Laws." Editorial, 26Beneh 6' Bar 87 (Sept.).
"These evils are, in our opinion, (1) the grant ing of divorces for trivial causes to persons who migrate or emigrate merely to obtain divorces,
secured.
The best method of approaching the
problem appears to be through uniform state
legislation of the kind above suggested. And it is believed that through such legislation much can be done to minimize the evils to which we have referred. While the conference of Govern ors is past, there is no reason why a conference of Governors’ representatives should not be called to consider this question, as was done in
1887 at the instance of Governor Hill to consider the subject of interstate rendition." Monopolles. “The Problem of Controlling Monopolies." By William C. McChord. Edi
and (2) the marriage in other states of divorced
persons forbidden to marry again by the laws of their own states. . . .
"In New York the statute forbidding a person divorced for his or her adultery to marry again during the life of the innocent spouse has been
torial Review, v. 5, p. 928 (Oct.). Mr.
McChord,
who
was
counsel
for
the
"Hurley" tobacco growers of Kentucky, would substitute for the existing system one of ad ministrative regulation of corporations by state
held not to apply to marriages outside New York,
which are recognized as valid in this state, even where both parties are residents of New York, and are married in another state for the express
purpose of evading the New York law (Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N. Y., 18; Tharp v. 110$, 90 N. Y., 602; Moore v. Hegeman, 92
N.
., 521). . . . "What remedy, if any, is there for this condi tion? New York can, of course, make such marriages void in this state, wherever they take place; and it is possible that some concerted action among the states or some of them might be secured for the enactment of laws prohibit ing the marriage in a state of a person forbidden to remarry by the law of another state in which he has been divorced for his own wrongdoing. . . . Conceding to every state the fullest right to determine for itself what shall constitute grounds for divorce, it is still reasonable to ask
that the local policy be not a plied to acts com mitted elsewhere in favor of, a person seeking to obtain from those acts an effect not given to them by the state in which they were committed,
and in which he was domiciled at the time. And this has been recognized. The uniform divorce law prepared by the National Congress on Uniform Divorce Laws in 1906, and already ado ted in Delaware and New Jersey, contains a cause providing, in effect, that no divorce shall be granted to a person not a resident of the state when the cause occurred, unless such cause was ground for divorce in the state where the
plaintiff then resided (see, for example, Laws
and
national
commissions,
having
functions
analogous to these of state railway commissions and the Interstate Commerce Commission. "Is the United States Judiciary Powerless to Hurt the Business of a Trust?" By William L Royall. 73 Central Law Journal 297 (Oct. 27). "If the argument of this paper is sound, all the Government can do is to restrain the Ameri can Tobacco Company from violating the law in the future, and to provide penalties for its violation of the law in the future. But the past is a sealed book, and what the American Tobacco Company has acquired in the past belongs to it and it cannot be deprived of one
dollar's worth of those acquisitions without overthrowing the fundamental principle upon which social order rests." "A Review of the Opinions of the Chief Jus tice of the United States in the Standard Oil and Tobacco Cases." By Albert H. Walker. 45 American Law Review 718 (Sept-Oct). Taking the view that all that the Chief Jus tice said about the “rule of reason" was mere obiler dicta, and accusing the Court of deliber
ately frustrating the will of Congress. Municipal Trading. “Aspects of Public Ownership, IV." By Sydney Brooks. North
of N. J., 1907, chap. 216, sec. 6, subd. b, sec. 7, subd. b.). Such legislation seems to us most
American Review, v. 194, p. 737 (Nov.).
commendable. . . . "The second branch of the ‘western divorce’ evil is due to the divergence of view as to the extra-territorial effect to be given to a foreign divorce granted upon constructive service of process. . . . It is most unfortunate that there should be a diversity of view as to the extra territorial effect to be given to divorce decrees. "The difficulties of the situation are sufficiently obvious, and it is too much to ho for anything like a complete remedy for existing evils in the near future. The great diversities of opinion on the subject preclude the possibility of any
"The probability is that if all the necessary data could be collected and examined, munic ipal trading in Great Britain would show a cer tain small advantage over private corporations in the matter of the cost of the services supplied,
but would not show any corresponding advan tage in point of quality. Those, however, are assumptions which, whether reasonable or other wise, can neither be proved
nor disproved.
Meanwhile what appears to be certain from a study of British experiences is that municipal enterprise always leads to an immediate increase
