« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
fact that he sells it for the benefit of the maker sity of Rochester. New York and London: G. P. Putnam's takes the precise place of the
re- Sons, 1884. spect to the defense of usury. Hall v. Earnest, 36 This work possesses more than ordinary interest, for Barb. 585. This doctrine has been fully recognized in it marks an epoch in American legal literature. The our own State. Campbell v. 'Nichols, 4 Vroom, 81. contributions of this country to Roman law are not Sup. Ct N. J., Feb., 1884. Zabriskie v. Spielman. Opin- | numerous, and most of them have been issued at inion Van Syckel, J. (46 N. J. L. 35.)
tervals widely apart. Outside of our French and Spanish provinces the contributions are few. Cooper's
version of Justinian's Institutes, Professor Hammond's CORRESPONDENCE.
very able introduction, or excursus, prefacing the DONATIO CAUSA MORTIS.
American edition of Sander's Justinian, Hadley's and
Cushing's historical sketches, Kaufman's and CropEditor of the Albany Law Journal:
sey's translations of Makeldey readily occur to us as The case of Williams v. Schatz, abstract of which,
the most important instances of Roman law books pubfrom Ohio Supreme Court, is given in last number of
lished on this side of the water. Now comes "Morey's your JOURNAL, p. 455, when compared with Grymes Outlines." Though it is of the handy volume series v. Hone 49 N. Y. 19, seems to warrant the sound
rather than of the technical order of Roman law books ness of Lord Eldon's opinion, that, “it among these
this volume possesses a considerable literary and techthings called improvements in the law, this donatio
nical merit. In its technical aspect it is an effort to causa mortis was struck out of our law altogether, it
apply the principles of Sir H. Maine to controverted would be quite as well.” We are unable to discover questions of the origin of Roman law, and thus far it even a nice shade of difference between the two cases.
is of some value to the students of comparative jurisIn the Ohio case, A., having executed in due form a
prudence. There is little doubt that Professor Morey deed of gift of real estate to his son, said to B., "take
is well adapted from a good training among the Gerthis deed and keep it. If I get well I will call for it; if I don't, give it to Billy," the grantee. A. was then ject. We know of no book in English - Amos' latest
man civilians to an accurate presentation of his subill, and died in a few days of same illness. B. then contribution, “Roman Civil Law,” not excepted – delivered the deed to the grantee. The court held
where the rudimentary facts relative to the developthere was no delivery, and the instrument was in
ment of Roman law are better or more tersely prevalid. In the New York case, the donor executed an assign- is not so ambitious as that of Amos, nor can it usurp
sented than they are in these “ Outlines.” The work ment in writing to his granddaughter, of a certificate of shares of stock in a New York bank.
its place; but it contains a great deal of matter not
hinted at by Amos. As a practical book of reference, After signing the paper he kept it by him for awhile,
that of Amos excels, for it contains references to the and afterward handed it to his wife to put with the
Pandects, and serves as a sort of abridgment index to will and other papers in a tin box she had. When he
original sources. But Morey's outlines may well serve gave to his wife the paper, he said: “I intend this for
as an introduction to Amos' work, and both together Nelly. If I die, don't give this to the executors, it
will point the student's way to the more mysterious isn't for them, but for Nelly; give it to her, herself.”
recesses of the only jurisprudence which may now be She asked, " why not give it to her now?” “Well,”
seen from start to finish. That either Amos' or he said, “ better keep it for the present; I don't know
Morey's book is of great technical value, we prehow much longer I may last, or what may happen, or
sume, is not pretended, but they are of unquestionable whether we may not need it."
value to English-speaking students, and of the two we The donor was old and ilí, but asted five months.
prefer Professor Morey's, as it is the more condensed. The court held this a valid gift mortis causa.
We are in hopes that this little volume is but the preDid the donor in the former of the cases cited any
cursor of others of a like character. The American more reserve the power of revocation, or any the less part with the dominion over the subject of the gift interesting scientific problem, is it indeed so that the
faculty of civilians may yet solve for the world that than in the latter?
Roman law is the true common law of all Europe, and A recovery from the illness would in either case have entitled the donor to reclaim the property branch of the same tree, as Savigny always con
that our own Anglo-American common law is but & given.
tended. Does the law gather a different interpretation of the intentions of these respective donors, so far as to war
COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. rant these apparently antipodal decisions ?
Was not the depositary of the instrument as much THE following decisions were handed down Tuesthe agent of the donor and trustee for the donee, in
day, Dec. 9, 1884: the one case as in the other?
Judgments of Special and General Terms reversed, Were not the declarations of the donors in both cases
new trial granted, costs to abide the event--Theodore a statement of the law as to such a gift? In either
F. H. Meyer, appellant, v. Hiram Phillips and another, case a restoration to health would render the gift void, respondents.—Judgment affirmed with costs-Har. and in both the gift was subject to the arbitrary will
vey Baker, respondent, v. Village of Oneonta, of the donor during life. What and where is the dis
- Appeal dismissed with costs-Henry A. Bate, tinction, if any? Yours respectfully,
appellant, v. William 0. McDowell, respondent. —
Appeal dismissed on the ground that upon the cir
DANL. B. BEACH. ROCHESTER, Dec. 6, 1884.
cumstances disclosed by the papers the order appealed from was discretionary–Thomas W. Harris, assiguee, etc., respondent, v. Lavina Taylor, appellant. — Order
affirmed with costs-People ex rel. Edward Rorke and NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS.
another v. Board of Assessors of Brooklyn; In re Ap
plication Staten Island Rapid Transit R. Co.; In re MOREY'S ROMAN LAW.
Petition of Sarah T. Sands, eto.; James O'Shea, reOutlines of Roman Law, comprising its historical growth spondent, v. Henry Kohn, appellant. — Order of and general principles. By William C. Morey, Ph. D.,
General Term reversed, costs to abide the event-In re Professor of History and Political Science in the Univer- Petition of Cyrus W. Swan, eto.
The Albany Law Journal.
W. G. Hammond and other American jurists, we may hope that the day of contemptuous treatment
of the science of law is fast waning, to give place ALBANY, DECEMBER 20, 1884. to the age of codification. That the tide is really
setting in that direction, indeed seems evident CURRENT TOPICS.
from other facts than those adduced by Mr. Dudley
Field and his fellow-workers, Mr. Frankenheimer, E have had our attention called to a “memo
Mr. Roger Foster and others, in their able, critical randum upon the proposed Civil Code,” with reply to Mr. Carter and those on his side. Not an appendix separate from the “memorandum,” but only has California adopted what New York is still said to be part of it. We had hitherto supposed hesitating to adopt, but San Francisco law publishthat “memorandums” were either of a private Whitney & Co., show their very real belief in codi;
ers, such as the well-known house of Sumner, character, or else diplomatic notes issued by sovereign States in connection with negotiations of mag
fication by issuing what are practically unofficial nitude. Of the two kinds of memorandums known
codes in the shape of pocket manuals of the law
by able editors. We have already noticed Mr. to us this particular one is not issued by a sovereign State, for it purports to come from Mr. John Desty's Shipping and Admiralty Law in this series, R. Strong, a lawyer in the city of New York. It
and there have since come to us, in code shape, must therefore have gotten out of the receptacle Law of Real Property, and Mr. Stewart's Marriage
Mr. Barber's Principles of Insurance, Mr. Boone's for Mr. Strong's other memorandums. It begins a little like a soliloquy, with “I stand here for the
and Divorce. It seems evident that the principle law - Shylock," and ends with the anti-climax,
of codification is taking root, and that the Atlantic
States must in time steer for the Golden Gate.'" "which is respectfully urged.” The memorandum however states that it “agrees unqualifiedly with the declarations of Mr. James C. Carter of the New Among the grave problems of American governYork bar," so we suppose it may be regarded as ment is that concerning municipal debts. The late conclusive. It evidently rejects Mr. Field in toto, constitutional amendment, restricting the power to that is if we understand Mr. Strong, and we con- incur debts, is a step in the right direction. Manfess that we do not always, although his incubra- hood suffrage, abstractly right beyond question, tions are lucidity itself compared with those by Mr. should not be permitted to confiscate property, and J. Bleecker Miller.
its execution seems to require watching in our great cities.
Lycurgus, when advised to try a The English quarterly Law Magazine and Reviero democracy, is said by Plutarch to have advised his
The says: “The battle of codification is, we find, being adviser to try a democracy in his own house. very hotly waged just now in the State of New
moral is obvious. We now hear it intimated that York. We have received several pamphlets pro
the enterprising city of New York proposes to and con., all of which we have read with interest,
evade the constitutional inhibition against excesnot excepting Mr. Carter's 'Counterblast to the
sive debt by decreasing the valuation of its assessaMonstrous Regiment of Codification.' For it is
ble property, thus increasing indefinitely its limits always a matter worthy of attention how that
of indebtedness. We sincerely hope that in the which to some minds may seem to require no de
interests of good government such an outrage will monstration, to other minds presents itself as simply be checked by some concerted action. We advise and absolutely the impossible and the undesirable.
the special committee of the City Bar Association And yet even to Mr. Carter's mind codification, per
to let the work of codification alone and to exert se, would seem to have some ground of desirable
themselves to simplify and promote good governness left - only Mr. Field's code he will not have
ment by defeating any scheme projected to impair at all. It is a more serious matter that Mr. Carter
the operation of the new amendment. Here is a presents, under a misleading aspect, the historical real chance to get glory! facts concerning Roman law and French codification. If the Roman law was in any sense what he We have more than once spoken of Chief Justice thinks it was
- a failure — it was so splendid a Elliott, of Indiana, as one of the best judicial failure that the world may well stand excused for writers in this country. It is a curious fact that having taken it for a victory. We have little nearly all the best cases in his court seem to fall to doubt that the possibility of seriously adopting him to write the opinions. If he picks them out such an attitude toward the unquestioned mistress himself, he shows good judgment; if the matter is of all scientific jurisprudence is mainly due to the decided by chance, fortune is kind to him. Just absence of any general study of the Roman law in now we are more interested in his paper on “The the United States. But with such commentators as Philosophy of Punishment for Crime,” published Mackeldey placed in their hands, as recently edited in the Indiana Lar Magazine of October 28, Novemby Mr. Dropsie, supplemented by oral teaching - ber 8. It is a very interesting production. It is to be followed no doubt by examination — and the hard to select where all is so admirable, but the evident appreciation of Roman law shown by Dr. following will give an idea of the scope and treat
VOL. 30 - No. 25.
ment of the writer: “Law-givers, philosophers with men hardened in crime; men whose glory is and theologians have for ages assumed that men their wickedness; and by the evil associations are responsible beings, and the combined experience thrown around these novices in evil-doing have of many centuries is far weightier than the specu- their inborn propensities festered into settled wicklations of visionary theorists. But as we have edness, and reformation becomes impossible. The seen, the assumption is supported by the closest wrong is a cruel one, in most instances an awful analogies and strongest reasons. Its denial in- crime. It is a fierce enough battle for the young ofvolves the affirmation that organized society is im- fender to fight the inherited impulses, strengthened possible, and this is nihilism in its worst form. as they most often are by his environments, without There are however degrees of responsibility; some having his enemies re-enforced by the teachings and persons are less responsible than others. On this influences of the inmates of the prison disgraced point we nearly always err, for we almost invaria- beyond the hope of reclamation; and society does bly place the heavier responsibility on the wrong a cruel thing in supplying the re-enforcements that person. If a lad born of good parents, and who conquer the already hard pressed and far-spent moves among the refined and educated, commits a combatant. Not only do the evil associations theft, we feel that his punishment should be light, strengthen the wicked propensities, but the disbut if a child born of wicked parents, and who be- grace destroys all hope. There are many prison longs in the ranks of the degraded, commits a like doors over which might be written the memorable offense, we feel that he should be severely pun- words of Dante: “Abandon hope all ye who enter ished. This judgment is radically wroug.
In here.' It may cost money to change our system of strict justice it is the well-born lad who deserves dealing with the young in crime, but shall an enthe severest punishment, and not the ill-born, lightened people weigh money against souls? It whose inherited tendencies, and whose surround- may be a slow and toilsome work, the repose of so. ings have exerted such a fearful influence upon his ciety may somewhat suffer, but in the end the gain mental and moral nature. Environment is, I know, will be infinitely greater than any loss, and will a term
en made to stand for much and mean lit- many times repay the work and time bestowed. tle, but it possesses an important meaning, and There may be disheartening failures, but success conveys a material thought when used as descrip- will be attained at last, and in such fair measure tive of the influences under which children are that no one will doubt that the end crowns all. To born and reared. The child reared among thieves take measures to reform those in whom there is and harlots and brutal men is surrounded by fate- hope of reformation is to lay the axe to the root. ful influences that would be very likely to drive to take the children of the bad from evil influinto crime a child burn of the purest and best par- ences is to check the polluted stream that breeds ents. The malignant influences that surround the criminals as foul waters breed slimy things. That young who dwell with vicious women and brutish society has a right to do this there can be no doubt; men are so powerful that it is a marvel that any one that it is the duty of society to do it is not unever escapes from their fell power. Better a certain." thousand fold than all the criminal codes that man ever did or ever can devise, would be a pian that
NOTES OF CASES. should take the young from these dark places and evil associations, and place them in a brighter and N purer region. More potent than the law of envi- default was entered against the defendant in ronment is the dreadful and unbending one of the Municipal Court of Dane county, Wisconsin. heredity.
The laws of heredity and He was at that time domiciled in that State, but environment, powerful as they are, do no more than was absent therefrom. The summons was not perimplant in the individual tendencies and propensi- sonally served upon him, but was left at his resities; they are not laws of action; they do not com- dence in the presence of his wife. This mode of pel a person to do wrong; they simply incline bim service, and the proceedings in the Municipal Court to a life of evil. They are not supreme laws; were regular and valid according to the laws of above them the conscience, the judgment that State. Held, that the judgment was valid, and the will. No sane man was ever driven into and that an action might be maintained thereon in crime by the laws of heredity and environment. this State. The court, Bradley, J., said: “The As Dr. Elam says: 'And herein consists man's re- courts of any State or country can have no extrasponsibility, and the very possibility of virtue, that territorial jurisdiction so as to give notice, serve whilst the brute acts strictly according to his or- process, or charge persons or property beyond their ganization, man equally urged by his, may act ac- respective boundaries. And when thus unable to cording to a higher law, i. e., a moral law. Every acquire jurisdiction of the person against whom lesane man is responsible for his voluntary acts, gal proceedings are by statute authorized, and whatever may be the moving impulse. Sin and nominally taken without actual service on him, the crime are always sin and crime, whatever the con- proceeding can be treated as in rem only in respect stitutional tendency.' * Society too often to property within the jurisdiction. But it has disregards these potent laws of heredity and environ- been repeatedly held in England that this doctrine ment, and thrusts young offenders into confinement is not applicable when the person so sought to be
charged by judgment is a subject or citizen of the expressed. A false pretense is defined to be 'repcountry where and at the time the proceedings are resentation of some fact or circumstance calcutaken, and when they are in conformity to the stat- lated to mislead, which is not true.' Commonute there, although the person be then absent from wealth v. Drew, 19 Pick. 179. What is said to be the country, and that is put upon the ground that a fuller and practically better definition is the folthe person domiciled there owes allegiance to the lowing: 'A false pretense is such a fraudulent repcountry and submission to its laws. Douglas v. resentation of an existing or past fact by one who Forrest, 4 Bing. 686; Becquet v. Me Carthy, 2 Barn. knows it not to be true, as is adapted to induce & Adol. 951; Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q. B. the person to whom it is made to part with some(Ad. & Ell.) 717; Same v. Harding, 9 C. B. (M. G. thing of value.' 2 Bish. Cr. Law, § 415.
In Reg. & S.) 661; Vallee v. Dumergue, 4 Exch. 290; Meeus v. Evans, 8 Cox C. C. 257, note to Bish. Cr. Law, v. Thellusson, 8 id. 638; Copin v. Adamson, L. R., 235, it is said: Had the prisoner represented the 9 id. 345; S. C., 10 Moak, 492. And therefore a note to be of five pounds value, when she knew it judgment may in such case be rendered against was not of that value, and the jury had found the and charge a defendant in personam, without any false pretense, and that the note was of less value personal service upon or actual notice to him, and than five pounds to her knowledge, it would have in his absence from the country. There are only a been sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. In few reported cases in this country where that propo- Commonwealth v. Stone, 4 Metc. 43, the Supreme sition has been considered. In the United States Court of Massachusetts held that the passing of a Supreme Court a question somewhat analogous was bill of a broken bank at its nominal value by one decided in like manner as applied to the United who represents it to be of such value, yet knows it States. Lafayette Insurance Company v. French, 18 to be nearly if not quite worthless, is an indictable How. 404; approved in St. Clair v. Cox, 106 V. S. pretense under the statute, although the bill may 356; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 id. 714, 722, 734, 735. be of some value. 'A representation that a horse And in this State this proposition is stated, and the is sound, by one who knows it not to be true, is English cases cited with apparent approval. Gibbs within the statute, and is indictable.'
State v. V. Queen Insurance Company, 63 N. Y. 114, 126; Stanley, 64 Me. 157.” To the same effect, Watson v. Hunt v. Hunt, 72 id. 218, 238; S. C., 28 Am. Rep. People, 87 N. Y. 561; S. C., 41 Am. Rep. 397. “ The 129; Cassidy v. Leetch, 53 How. Pr. 108, 109. doctrine in the language of Russell, that the preWithout stating the principle more at length it tense 'need not be such an artificial device as will may be assumed that by reason of the relation be- impose upon a man of ordinary caution is fully estween the State and its citizen, which affords pro- tablished, at least in the English courts. And the tection to him and his property, and imposes upon pretense need not be such as cannot be guarded him duties as such, he may be charged by judg- against by common prudence. 2 Bish. Cr. Law, ment in personam, binding on him everywhere as the $ 436. 'It is substantially settled that any false represult of legal proceedings instituted and carried resentation, extending beyond mere opinion, conon in conformity to the statute of the State, pre- cerning the quality, value, nature or other incident scribing a method of service which is not personal, of an article offered for sale, whereby a purchaser and which in fact may not become actual notice to relying on the representation is defrauded, is a viohim. And this may be accomplished in his lawful lation of these statutes.' Id., § 447.
A mere absence from the State."
opinion is not a false pretense, but any statement
of a present or past fact is, if false.' Id., $ 454. In People v. Jordan, Supreme Court of California,
There need be only one false pretense, and alOctober, 1884, 18 Rep. 713 it was held that an in- though several are set out in an indictment, yet if dictment for false pretenses will lie for falsely and any one of them is proved, being such as truly fraudulently representing that certain railroad amounts in law to false pretense, the indictment is bonds are of a certain market value, whereby a sum
sustained. Id., § 418. A false representation of money is obtained on the pledge thereof. The that one Conlin was a liquor dealer, doing business court, Morrison, C. J., said: It is true that the au- as such in Boston, was held to be within the statthorities may be somewhat conflicting, and that in
ute. Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 127 Mass. 449.” many of them very nice and not entirely satisfac
See also Higler v. People, 44 Mich. 299; S. C., 38 tory distinctions are drawn between cases that are
Am. Rep. 267, where the representation was of being and cases that are beld not to be within the stat
a "storekeeper." ute; and as was said by Dewey, J., in Commonwealth v. Norton, 11 Allen, 267: 'It may be difficult In Farrell v. Cook, Supreme Court of Nebraska, to draw a precise line of discrimination applicable September, 1884, 18 Rep. 727, an injunction was to every possible contingency, and we think it granted against the use and occupation of premises safer to leave it to be fixed in each case as it may as a place for putting jacks and stallions to mares, occur.' But we have found no case that holds such in full view of plaintiff's dwelling, and to the representations as are charged in this case not in- great inconvenience and discomfort of the plaintdictable. The following principles and authorities iff and his family. The court said: “A nuisance may be cited in further support of the views herein may be defined as whatever is injurious, offensive
It is a
to the senses, indecent or an obstruction to the free ties on improper comments of counsel will be found use of property, so as materially to interfere with in a note in 48 Am. Rep. 336, now in press. the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. Regina v. Grey, 4 Fost. & F. 73; State v. Purse, 4
In Commonwealth v. Keeper of County Prison, McCord, 472; Nolin v. Muyor, 4 Yerg. 163; Pickard v. Collins, 23 Barb. 444-453; Hackney v. State
, Pennsylvania Quarter Sessions, March 28, 1884, 15
W. N. C. 282, it was held that obtaining money 8 Ind. 494; State v. Taylor, 29 id. 517; 4 Wait Act. & Def. 727. It is any thing that unlawfully work
upon a false representation that the party obtaining eth hurt, inconvenience or damage. 3 Bl. Com. 5,
it can produce the spirits of deceased persons, etc., 216; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 245; Commonwealth v. R.
is punishable under the statute against false pre
tenses. The court said: “It has been held in Co., 14 Gray, 93; Coker v. Birge, 9 Ga. 425. term applied to that class of wrongs that arise from England, under a statute similar to our own, that a the unreasonable or unlawful use by a person of his
defendant falsely pretending that he had power to
communicate with the spirits of deceased persons, own property, real or personal, or from his own
and that he could cause such spirits to be present improper, indecent or unlawful personal conduct,
in a material form, and play upon musical instruworking an obstruction of or injury to the right of
ments, made a pretension of existing facts, and another, or of the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt,
that obtaining money on such pretenses came that the law will presume a consequent damage.
within the statute against false pretenses. Regina
v. Lawrence, 36 L. T. (N. S.) 404; Regina v. Giles, 11 Wood Nuis., § 1. There must not only be a violation of a right, but an essential inconvenience, an
id. 643. Although the fraudulent misrepresenta
tion of an existing fact was accompanied by an exnoyance or discomfort must result therefrom. Id., § 9. A party is entitled to free use and enjoyment it was none the less a false pretense. Regina v. West,
ecutory promise to do something at a suture period, of his own property, but he must so use it as not to interfere with the rights of others. Enjoy your lady who testified in this case paid her money on
8 Cox C. C. 12; Regina v. Jennison, 9 id. 158. The property in such a manner as not to injure that of
the faith of the representations of the relators, another person, is the maxim of the law. That the plaintiff in error has violated this rule is clearly
which proved to be false, and thus we have a clear shown by the petition, and also that the defendant
case of obtaining money by false pretenses.” See
Bowen v. State, 9 Baxt. 45; S. C., 40 Am. Rep. 71, in error has sustained special injury by such viola
and note, 75. tion. In Hayden v. Tucker, 37 Mo. 214, it was held that the keeping and standing of jacks and stallions within the immediate view of a private dwel- LAWRENCE'S INTERNATIONAL LAW.* ling was a nuisance. So too the keeping of a brothel near one's dwelling. Hamilton v. Whitridge, MHESE essays contain a great deal of matter in11 Md. 128. We have no doubt that the plaintiff
teresting to Americans, and for that matter below is entitled to an injunction as prayed for in interesting to thoughtful people of all civilized his petition.” See Anderson v. Doty, 33 Hun, 160; countries. The first essay in the series, “Is there ante, 323; Marsan v. French, 61 Tex. 173; S. C., 48
a True International Law,” denotes the growing Am. Rep. 272, and note, 274.
interest in those rules which are assumed to gov. ern the external relations of the great powers.
Modern science and commerce have done and are In Simmerman v. State, Nebraska Supreme Court, doing much to neutralize ancient conceptions of Nov. 18, 1884, 21 N. W. Rep. 387, a murder case, the
government, and to compel nations to adopt comprisoner, being convicted, complained of miscon
mon principles of external action. Professor Lawduct of the district attorney in speaking of the rence discusses the nature of these rules, and proplaintiff to the jury as “ Billy the Kid, or Jesse pounds, in substance, the always interesting quesJames sort of a cow-boy." The court said: “The tion, do these rules of international action respond plaintiff in his testimony had freely stated that he
to those conceptions of law formulated by Austin had been tending stock in New Mexico and on the and the analytical jurists? Answering this selfplains; that he carried two revolvers and a butcher- propounded question in the negative, he then seeks knife; and that his companion, Belmont, carried to show that these international rules are neverthefour revolvers. It is also apparent that the plaint- less entitled to be regarded as laws — not rules. iff displayed his weapons with something approach
We quite agree in this conclusion, but we are not ing braggadocio; and in fact by his conduct justi- prepared to agree with Professor Lawrence that fied the district attorney in speaking of him in the Bantham and Austin, fell into great error in their way he did. Peaceable and law-abiding men do definitions of positive law. External positive law, not find it necessary, in a peaceable community, to as we prefer to call international law, is one thing load themselves down with deadly weapons, and and modern internal positive law is a very distinct their conduct is open to criticism when they do so. There was no error therefore in using the words
* Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern Interna
tional Law. By T. J. Lawrence, M. A., L.L.M., Cambridge. complained of.” A very full collection of authori. Deighton, Bell & Co., 1884.