45 form Act, designed to remove minor differences and technical inequalities without changing general rules, ought to strengthen rather than destroy. OMAHA, NEBRASKA. Anan Raymond. 45 Mr. Chief Justice Winslow, in State Bank v. Michel, 152 Wis. 88, 139 N. W. 748, 749 (1913). Similar views are expressed in Columbian Banking Co. v. Bowen, 134 Wis. 218, 114 N. W. 451 (1908); Campbell v. Bank, 137 Ky. 555, 126 S. W. 114 (1910); and by Mr. Chief Justice Rugg in Fourth Nat. Bank v. Mead, 216 Mass. 521, 523, 104 N. E. 377, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226 (1914); and Liberty Trust Co. v. Tilton, 217 Mass. 462, 466, 105 N. E. 605, L. R. A. 1915B, 144, 148. HARVARD LAW REVIEW Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.50 PER ANNUM 85 CENTS PER NUMBER Editorial Board CHARLES BUNN, President DONALD E. DUNBAR, Note Editor G. HERBERT SEMLER, Case Editor ROBERT C. BROWN PAUL P. COHEN CHARLES P. Curtis, JR. CHAUNCEY H. HAND, JR. THEODORE A. LIGHTNER WILLIAM C. BROWN, JR., Treasurer STANLEY MORRISON THORPE D. NESBIT JOSEPH D. PEELER RALPH W. PYLE JOHN D. VAN COTT THE LAW SCHOOL.-The registration in the School on November 15 of each of the last twelve years is shown in the following table: Of the students now registered all but five are college graduates,* and of those five, three are graduates of other law schools. There are now in the School representatives from one hundred and Fifteen men who have completed all the work necessary for a degree but who have not actually received their diplomas are reckoned as graduates. fifty-five colleges and universities, as compared with one hundred and forty-four last year and the same number the previous year. The following table shows the Geographical source from which the twelve successive first year classes have been drawn: In the present first year class one hundred and seven colleges and universities are represented as follows: Dartmouth, Brown, 10; Harvard, 78; Yale, 35; Princeton, 20; Washington & Jefferson, 7; Cornell Univ., 6; Coll., Univ. of Michigan, 5; Amherst Coll., Bucknell Univ., Univ. of Illinois, Oberlin, Wabash, Williams, 4; Univ. of California, Univ. of Cincinnati, Clark, Colby, Indiana Univ., Univ. of Minnesota, Univ. of Missouri, Trinity Coll. (Conn.), Univ. of Wisconsin, 3; Bowdoin, Carleton, Univ. of Chicago, Davidson College, Franklin & Marshall, Univ. of Georgia, Georgetown Univ., Holy Cross College, Univ. of Kansas, Lake Forest College, Univ. of Nebraska, Univ. of North Carolina, Northwestern Univ., Univ. of Oregon, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Pomona College, Utah Agricultural College, Wooster Univ., Illinois Coll., Coll. of Charleston, Reed Coll., 2; Univ. of Alabama, Univ. of Arkansas, Beloit Coll., Carroll Coll., Colgate, Colorado, Univ. of Colorado, Columbia Univ., Cornell Coll., Fordham Univ., Franklin, Hamilton, Haverford, Howard, Johns Hopkins Univ., Kenyon Coll., Knox Coll., Lafayette, Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., Lincoln Univ., Miami Univ., Middlebury Coll., Ohio State Univ., Ohio Wesleyan Univ., Oxford Univ. (England), Rutgers Coll., Shurtleff Coll., Univ. of South Carolina, Syracuse Univ., Univ. of Tennessee, Univ. of Texas, Union Coll., Univ. of Utah, Washington & Lee Univ., Western Reserve Univ., West Virginia Univ., Wofford Coll., Washington, Univ. of So. California, Wm. Jewell Coll., Va. Union Univ., Mt. St. Mary's Coll., Univ. of Mississippi, Roanoke Coll., McMaster Univ., Coe Coll., Wake Forest Coll., RandolphMacon Coll., Univ. of Washington, Carthage Coll., City College (N. Ÿ.), McGill Univ., Mercer Univ., Rice Institute, Hobart Coll., Whitman, Mt. Union Coll., Mt. Allison Univ., Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Lehigh Univ., Collegiate Institute of Havana, I. THE HARVARD LEGAL AID BUREAU. — The increasing difficulties of the administration of justice in a modern city make the work of the Legal Aid bureaus increasingly necessary and important. In Cambridge this work is handled by the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, made up of students in the second- and third-year classes of the Law School. The history of this Bureau, running back now more than four years, proves beyond all doubt the willingness and ability of law students to carry on legal aid work. The services of the members of the Bureau are entirely voluntary and the necessary expenses of the work are defrayed by voluntary contributions. During the year ending in June, 1916, 147 cases were brought before the Bureau, resulting in a total cash recovery for clients of $1,647.50. Of the ten cases requiring court action that arose or were continued from the year before, five were won, one lost, two dropped, and two are still pending. An interesting sidelight is the fact that of the 147 clients of the Bureau 72 were men and 75 women. The officers and members of the Bureau for the current year are: George B. Barrett, president; Whitney B. Shepardson, vice-president; Arthur E. Case, secretary-treasurer; Walcott B. Hastings, Marion Rushton, Carl W. Painter, directors; B. D. Bromley, G. G. Chandler, Lawrence Clayton, Joseph France, J. F. Gunster, M. M. Manning, S. Miller, Jr., K. F. Pantzer, Shelton Pitney, A. L. Rabb, Norman Schaff, S. P. Speer, W. B. Tippetts, from the third-year class; O. T. Bradley, R. S. Cowan, W. M. Ellis, E. M. Hay, F. B. Hubachek, Day Kimball, H. Parkman, Jr., W. T. Sanders, Jr., from the second-year class. THE CASE OF THE APPAM. - The arrival of the steamship Appam at Hampton Roads on January 31, 1916, at once raised legal questions of international importance. The Appam, two weeks before, had been lawfully taken as prize by a German man-of-war, at a point on the high seas much farther distant from the Virginia Capes than from the nearest German port. She was brought into Hampton Roads by a German prize crew, who asked that the ship be interned until the end of the war, claiming a right to such internment under the treaty with Prussia of 1799. While the Secretary of State was still considering this application for internment, the British owners filed libels in the United States District Court to recover possession of the vessel and cargo. The court decreed the restitution. The Appam, 234 Fed. 389 (U. S. Dist. Ct., E. D., Va.). 1 Whether the Appam was entitled to sequestration in an American port was decided by the court upon general principles of international law, since the treaty of 1799 with Prussia 2 had been construed as not applying to such a case as that of the Appam.3 In the past there has 1 The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador, April 4, 1916, Department OF STATE, DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE WIth Belligerent GOVERNMENTS RelatING TO NEUTRAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES, EUROPEAN WAR No. 3, 341, 342. 28 STAT. 162, 172. The Department of State construed the treaty as giving German prizes a right of asylum in American ports only when under convoy of a man-of-war, and only then when en route to the place named in the commission of the man-of-war's commander. This construction was reached by an admittedly strict interpretation, justified since been, unfortunately, no settled international rule upon this question,* but in recent years the tendency has been for neutrals to exclude prizes from their ports, except in cases of temporary necessity.5 Great Britain, because of maritime conditions, has been especially strong in support of this rule. It is not, however, even by the British view, a breach of neutrality for a neutral, if it chooses, to permit prizes to lie in its ports, at least pending their condemnation by a prize court' (which may amount in effect to an asylum as long as desired). The law of the United States upon the sequestration of prizes has apparently varied from time to time, until recently. But now, at least, this country has taken the view that no prizes shall come into its ports except for the purpose of satisfying temporary need. This policy, enunciated again in the principal case, must inevitably result in the destruction at sea of vessels that would otherwise be harbored until the close of war; 10 but, unless disturbed by the Supreme Court, its adoption by us seems certain. 8 The coming of the Appam into Hampton Roads for a purpose other than to get supplies or repairs was, then, a breach of the United States' the treaty "is in modification of the established rule." The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador, March 2, 1916, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, supra, 335. While the Department of State's construction should, of course, have been conclusive upon the court, nevertheless, Judge Waddill also construed the treaty, reaching the same result though upon a different basis of interpretation. See principal case, at p. 396. For a mild illustration of the confusion which this action of the court is bound to cause, as well as for a strong criticism of the merits of the interpretation, see 16 COL. L. REV. 585. 4 Cf. WHEATON, ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5 ed., 695 (an English text, published in 1916), with James Brown Scott, "The Right of Prize and Neutral Attitude toward the Admission of Prizes," 10 AM. J. INT. LAW, 104, 107 et seq.; HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 6 ed., 614. See 16 COL. L. REV. 585. Mr. Scott thinks the policy for exclusion is stronger in the case of a prize not under convoy, but his reasons are not convincing. 5 2 WESTLAKE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2 ed., 243. 6 WHEATON, supra, 695; 16 COL. L. REV. 585. Cf. James Brown Scott, "The Right of Prize and Neutral Attitude toward the Admission of Prizes," supra, 109. 7 HALL, supra, 614. 8 See 7 MOORE, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, § 1302. Cf. with the justification for a strict interpretation of the treaty, note 3, supra. The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador, April 7, 1916, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, supra, 342. (The Secretary of State's opinion is on the question of law involved.) But cf. The President's Proclamation concerning the Neutrality of the Panama Canal Zone, November 13, 1914, Rule 4: "Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of the belligerents." Art. 23 of the Hague Convention (13) of 1907 allowed sequestration of prizes in a neutral port, pending condemnation by a prize court; but the United States commissioners reported adversely upon this article, and the Senate refused to confirm it. See Charles Cheney Hyde, "The Hague Convention Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War," 2 AM. J. INT. LAW, 507, 524, 525. The British government declined to accede to Art. 23, "pending the renunciation of the right to sink neutral prizes." HALL, 615, n. 2. This article is not restricted by the preceding articles. 2 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2 ed., 396, 397. Germany's rights under the treaty of 1799 of course remained unchanged by Articles 21 and 22 of this convention, which the United States adopted, since the convention was not ratified by both belligerents. 10 See 16 COL. L. REV. 585, 587. For practical demonstrations that the theories concerning its harmful effects are sound, see Berlin correspondence of the International News Service, BOSTON AMERICAN, October 12, 1916, and cf. the letter of Captain Boy-Ed concerning the activities of the German man-of-war U-53 off Nantucket lightship, THE BOSTON TRAVELER, October 24, 1916. |