the Prefect of Police in Paris, has written the preface, in whicb bo aum marises with precision the work of Dr. Reige. The autl.or, be bayo, bas nodertaken the task of writing what Balzac would have called the psychologie du malfaiteur. To study the peculiar babits, the antecedents, the life by day and by night, the tastes and predilections of this dangerous anthropoid, such is the aim of Dr. Rejea. In effect, one learns throughout the first volume that the Lausanne professor has done for criminals what Fabre in the Vie des Insectes did for the scarabée sacré, with the same patience and, if one may say so, with the same love, and, in the view of M. Lépine, the work altogether is as interesting as a romanoe, and as rigorous as a scientifio treatise. All those wbo are engaged in seeking after the guilty, and riddiog the streets of a gens extrémement malins have to learn a thousand and one things as heteroclite as necessary

So Dr. Reiss in his lectares and in bis book shows bow to identify a recidivist, and how to make a good description of the place of the crime ; to note as to the marks tending to sbow whetber there has been any struggle. By studying how shoes are made, the police should be able to judge whether there are any means of knowing from footprints what make of boot the culprit was wearing at the time of the crime. The profeg:or deals with the slang current in criminal classe8, and the ca balistic signs by which these offenders communicate with each other. These are few of the points treated by Dr Reies.

LAW LIBRARY.

BOOKS RECEIVED. Spencer on Munici, al Origins. Constable and Co. Limited, 10. Oraoge.street, W.C. Price 10s. 6d. net.

Wicker on Neutralization. Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, Amen-corner, E.C. Prices : paper covers 4s, net; cloth 5. viet.

FOREIGN LAW.

A body was discovered in the Grand Canal at Dublin on Saturday last which was afterwards identified as that of Mr. William Albert FitzHenry, who was oalled to the Irigh Bar in 1902,

Mr. Henry Philip Mann, for fifty-two years a solicitor in practice at Chatham, and for twenty years town clerk of the borough, took leave of the corporation on the 14th inst. onlhis retirement from office. Only three of the twenty-four members who belonged to that body when be received the appointment now remain. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded Mr. Mann, and he received & pressing invitation to become mayor for the ensuing year. This honour, however, be declined. The new town clerk is Mr. Mann's assistant, Mr. J. W. Halloran.

Judge Rentoul was seized with illness in the City of London Court on Tuesday morning. Soon a' ter he had taken bis sest on the Bench he fell back in his ohair. The usher went at once to his assistance, followed by the registrar and members of the Bar, but before they Bould reach him he had fallen over on his right side. A hospital nurse wbo was in court waiting to give evidence rendered first aid, and after this Judge Rentoul was carried to his room. Dr. Colling. ridge, the City medical officer, was summoped. Within balf an hour Judge Rontoul had recovered sufficiently to be removed to his home. We are glad to state, however, that he was able to take his seat on the Bench on Wednesday, and was apparently quite well again.

The London Gazette of Tuesday contains a notioe that under the provisions of the Finance (1909-10) Act 1910 it is incumbent upon every person whose statutory income for the financial year ended the 5.1 April 1911 exceeded £5000 to give notice thereof to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax before the 30th Sept. Every indivi. dual, therefore, who has not already given suob notice, or who has not received a form of return for the year 1911-12 from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, should before that date communicate io writing with their clerk, at 49, Wellington-street, Strand, London, W.C., from whom the form of return may be obtained.

The green lawn situated upon the Clement’s-ion extremity of the Law Courts ie, for perbaps two year?, to be occupied by a wood and iron building wbich will shortly be erected to accommodate the increasing business of the Public Trustee's department. Plans are already in hand for the new offices of the Public Trustee in Sardinia. street, but so great is the expansion of the department that aocom. modation is already needed to supplement that offered by the sixty-two rooms now at its disposal in the premises at Clement’s-ipd. From five men the staff of the Publio Trustee's office has grown in four years to 205.-Times.

The justioes of Birmingham and Aston met last week at the Victoria Courts to confer upon the new judicial and administrative system necessitated by the extension of the oity. The approach of the new_order of things was signalised by the resignation of Mr. William Barradale, for over thirty years justices' clerk in Birmingham. Mr. C. A. Carter, who has acted as Mr. Barradale's obief lieutenant for a number of years, was appointed to the vacant chiefship. The Aston magistrates are to be added to the oity Bepcb, but about fifty magistrates who had formed suburban Benobes in other added areas are exoluded by the Act. The justices made various appointments to the magistrates' olerk's staff. The appointments have to be submitted to the city council by way of recommendation.

Mr. W. J. H. Grabam, revising barrister, gave his decision at Brampton, near Carlisle, on Tuesday in a test cage argued before him by the Liberal and Conservative agents for North Cumberland and North Westmorland as to whether the shooting rights of sporting tepants over land could carry a Parliamentary vote. He said that he had come to the conclusion that sporting rights were hereditaments capable of being separately dealt with and let, and not mere easements. A shooting tenant was getting just as muoh out of the land as a farmer who took his hay and corn. The concurrent right to shoot rabbits created by the Ground Game Act made no differ. ence to a sporting tenancy, and it was unnecessary for franchise por poees for a sporting tenant to have a legal document. He iberefore deoided that sporting rights carried the Parliamentary vote, but he regretted that there was no High Court judgment on that point.

One Paegage in Lord Rosebery's rectorial address at St. Andrews is not without interest to readers of the Law TIMES. Referring to the age of darkness, when the little glow-worm of a university first displayed its modest light, tbe Lord Rector said : • Nothing could be more unpromising. I ask you to remember this, that University of St. Andrew 8—for I belong to it for the moment, and am proud to belong to it—is all tbat remains of the Scotland of that time, with the possible exoeption of the Convention of the Royal Burgbs." It may be recalled that the Convention was fully dealt with in an article in the Law TIMES of the 8th July last, p. 219. Another passage equally interesting to the student of law was the following: “ It is calculated that not one of the nobility could sign his name before 1370, forty years before our foundation. Two centuries after our foundation, Patrick, Earl of Orkney, the virtual king of those islands, a noble of Royal lineage, was so igoorant that, being scarcely able to repeat the Lord's Prayer, bis execution was postponed for a few days so that he might receive a little instruction before he left this life.”

The University of Lausanne, on the borders of Lake Leman, possesses a unique chair in the Faculty of Law. It is known as the chaire de police scientifique, and the professer is Dr. Reies. His office is to inetruot magistrates in their duties and to give lectures to the police. In fact, he bas reduced the subject to a science, and attention is direoted to bio work by a portly volume which he has recently published under the title of Manuel de Police Scientifique. M. Lépine,

THE FRENCH LAW OF 1907 WITH REGARD TO

ENGLISH COMPANIES. ART. 3 of the French Finanoe Act of the 30th Jan. 1907 sets out the formalities to be complied with by foreign companies jesuing their securities in the French financial market.

Prior to 1907 the formalities to be complied with by foreign companies is: ujog Aecurities in the French financial market were not sufficient to prevent the public from being deceived. Purchasers had no means of verifying the truth of the statements made by the vendors in their prospectuses or advertisements, and numerous persons were ruined tbrough having been too confident in the success of undertakings presenting no security whatever.

It was necessary to check these financial scandals ; prosecutions against the vendors were generally useless, for the reason that they did not disclose their names, or acted through “men of straw

who could not possibly reconp the losses incurred by the shareholders

M Chastenet, in 1904, was the first member of the French Parliament to propose a special system of publicity to put an end to these scandals. In 1906 the Government saw the urgent necessity of dealing with this question. M. Caillauz, the French Minister of Finance, spoke as follows : “ At the present time numerous securities are sold on our Stock Exchange which have no value at all. The aim of art. 3 of the present Bill is to compel French as well as foreign companies with limited liability to publish their prospectuses and documents in the Journal Officiel, and you have to enact that do securities shall be put on sale in the French market upleng such publication shall have taken place. Our duty is to fix certain liabilities upon a certain ciass of financiers whose sole practice is to Bell fictitious securities.

No difficulty was raised in the Chambre des Députés and the Bill paesed without discussion. Certain modifications of detail only were added to the initial proposition.

It is interesting to carefully examine this art. 3, for it regulates one of the most important points concerning foreign companies, and its non-observance gives rise to beavy penalties.

We will discurs: (1) The facts w bich give rise to ap officis publicity ; (2) the publicity to be made ; (3) the persons compelled by law to make the same ; and (4) the penalties for the non-fulfilment of the legal requirements.

1.-Facts GIVING RISE TO AN OFFICIAL PUBLICITY. The first paragraph of art. 3 runs as follows : “ The issue, the offering for sale, the selling, and the introduction upon the market of shares, debenturee, or securities of any kind ... shall be subjected to the following formalities

prior to any advertisements." The provisions of the law therefore apply when the issue, the offering for sale, the selling, and the introduction take place in France kod the same are made public. The issue consists of seeking for subscribers for any kiod of securities. By this term is meant preference shares, oriinarysbares, and deferred shares as well as debentures. Consequently the fact of induoing the public to take shares in a company comes within this category as soon as any prospect uses, notices, circulars, and advertisements are published, The offering for sale is the fact

our

of its securities in France ; otherwise tbe law would not be complied with.

In conclusion, a foreign company is alwaye obliged to appoint a French banker, who inserts the nitice and sigas the same under his owo responsibility.

IV. -BREACHES. “Non compliance with the above regulations will be notified by the agents of the Government and will incur a penalty of a fine of from 10,000 to 20,000 francs.”

This penalty is incurred should any details required to be inserted in the notice be omitted ; if, for instance, the balance sheet is not fully reproduced or the name and address of the introducer or seller are not indicated. Similarly, the fine becomes payable if the details inseried in the notice are not reproduced in the posters or pro. spectuses, and if no reference to the number of the Bulletin be giver.

Is a penalty due in respect of each omission and infringement or in respect of tbe entire offer ce ?

The law upon this point is clear and cannot give rise to any discussion. The penalty is incurred in respect of each omission in the notice and for each non-observance of the legal requirements.

For instance, if the objects of the company and the amount of debentures already issued in a foreigo country do not appear in the notice a double penalty is incurred. Op the other hand, shoul 1 securities bave been issued prior to the publication of a notice, each of the introducers or sellers is liable. Similarly, a person issuing securities upon several occasione prior to tbe publication of the notice must pay a penalty in respect of each particular issue.

In the case of prospectuses, posters, and advertisements, which must produce either the notice in full or an extract with a reference to the Bulletin du Journal Officail in whiob the said notice or extract has appeared, a penalty is incurred in respect of each category of documents which does not contain the necessary details; i e., two penalties if the posters and prospectuses contain some omissions-one as regards the proepectuste and one as regards the posters.

As it has been previo nely stated, the amount of the penalty is from 10,000 francs to 20,000 francs. It appears to be very heavy, but as a matier of fact it may be reduced considerably. In the law of 1907 it is enacted that: ".

Art. 463 of the Penal Code shall apply to the penalties contained in paragraph.

According to art. 3, therefore, the judge has the power to reduce the penalties to the minimum of 1 franc, if he considers the parties are entitled to suoh a reduotion.

P. GIDE,
Avocut à la Cour d'Appel de Paris, and of

Lincoln's-inn, Barrister-at-Law.

players had been contributing to the prizes I gather that the decision would have been the other way. In the present case, therefore, as the players oontributed to the prizes it constituted gaming. Reliance, however, was placed on the concluding words of the section. In Jenks v. Turpin, Hawking, J. reviewed at length the several Acts relating to gaming, and on pp523.4 he proceeds to consider what are unlawful games within the statutes. He staten that there are two classes—those actually forbidden by name and those not probibited cr declared to be altogether illegal, but styled unlawful by the Legislature because the keeping of houses for playing them and the playing them herein by anybody was declared uolawful; that since the Gaming Act of 1845 the only games made uplawful by the statute of Henry VIII. are games of dice and cards; that all sucb games, if they are games of chance or games of chance and skill combined (wbiob cannot be called games of mere skill), are unlawful games under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38; that the language of the first section of the Act of 1845 referring to the statute of Henry VIII. and repeating only so much of it as applies to games of skill is

a strong indication of the intention of the Legislature that all the other games mentioned in the statute ol Henry VIII. were to continue to be treated as unlawful if played in a house kept for playing at them; and be concludes that the unlawlul games are ace of hearts, Pharaoh, ba geet bazard, roulette, every game of dice except backgammon, and every game of cards which is not a game of mere skill, and he is inclined to add any other game of moro chance. It is true that the Act with which that case was immediately concerned was not the Gaming Act of 1845, and the judge was not dealing at all with sect. 18. But he fouods bis conclusion very largely on the language of the first section to that Act and upon the intention of the Legislature indicated thereby, and, in my opinion, it must be taken that a lawful game in seot. 18 was intended to mean not any game which is not prohibited by statute or at common law, but a game other than those actually probibited or treated or styled as unlawful in the sense explained by Hawkins, J., and therefore, the whist drive being a game of cards and not a game of were skill, and being consequentlġ unlawful in that sense, the present case is not within the saving words of the section. I observe that Mr. Stutfield in his book (pp. 152-3) takes the same view as to the meaning of the words • lawful game ” in the section. Apart from the authority of Jenks v. Turpin, and on general considerations, I think should bave held that transactions or proceedings of this kind were not within the meaning which ought fairly to be attributed to the words of exception. The result, in my opinion, is that although there is nothing illegal in a person playing (except at certain places) in a whist drive for prizes to which he and other players subscribe or contribute, a court of law will pot entertaio a civil action brought by a winner to recover a prize if it be withheld or damages for breach of contract in withholding it.

COUNTY COURTS.

10;

at

11;

RECENT DECISION.

NORTON v. IDEAL WHIST COMPANY. In the Bloomsbury County Court of Middlesex in August last the following judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Bray :

His HONOUR. —This action was brought to recover £10 under the following circumstanoes : The defendants advertised in the Evening News of the 29th April as follows : “A great and select drive to night at 8.15, £10 coupon top score, and twelve other beautiful prizoe. The Ideal, 374, Oxford.street, corper James-street, opposite Bond.street Tube. Grand drive every evening. Charming rooms. Any person might play on payment to the defendants of ls. 6d. The plaintiff paid the defendants 18. 6d., played, and won the £10 coupon. The detendents sent him an order upon a particular shop; the plaintiff contended that he was entitled to an order upon any shop selected by him. The defendants disputing his claim, this action was brought. The only defence raised at the trial was that it was within the Gaming Acts. It is not necessary to describe in detail the procedure of a wbiet drive. It is sufficient to say that the player plays successively against different players, and that it is mainly a matter of chance with whom he plays and against whom he plays. Sect. 18 of 8 & 9 Vict. 0. 109 enacts that “all contracts or agreements

by way of gaming or wagering shall be pull and void, and that po suit eball be brought for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which eball have been deposited in tbe hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall bave been made

pro. vided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution or agreement to subscribe or contribute for or toward any plate, prize, or eum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exeroise." Tbere are two cases, and two 09588 only, to which I think it neceseary to refer-Lockwood v. Cooper (89 L. T. Rep 306; (1903) 2 K. B. 428) and Jenks v. T'urpin (50 L. T. Rep. 808; 13 Q. B. Div. 505). In Lockwood v. Cooper a number of persons played in a whist drive at an hotel, in a room hired for the purpose. They played for prizes which were not subscribed for by the players, but were given by third persone. It was held that it was not gaming within the Licensing Act of 1872, because to constitute gaming the game played must be one which involves the element of wagering; each player must have a chance of losing as well as winning; if the

SITIINGS OF THE COURTS.

FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, SEPT. 30. Ashton-under-Lyne,* Thursday, at Ilford, Friday, at 10.30 10

Leck, Monday, at 9.30 Attleborough, Monday, at 11

Leicester, Tuesday. Wednesday, Axminster, Wednesday, at 10

and Thursday, at 10; Saturday, Barnet, Tuesday (J.S.), at 10

at 9.30 Biggleswade, Monday, at 10.30 Leighton Buzzard, Thursday, at 10 Birmingham, Tuesday, Wednesday, Lincoln, Thursday (R. By), at 3 and Thursday, at 10

Liverpool, Monday (By at 11), Bishop's

Stortford, Friday, at 10 Thursday, and Friday (B., A.. Boston. Tuesday (R. By), at 1.30 and W.C.), at 10 Brentford, Wednesday and Friday Manchester, Monday, Tuesday, (J.S.), at 10

Thursday, and Friday, at 10 Bristol, Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- Marylebone, Tuesday, Wednesday, day, and Thursday,

at

Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Friday (By), at 11

Melton Mowbray,* Friday, at 10 Bury," Monday (J.S.), at 9

Mildenhall, Saturday Cambridge, Tuesday,

Newmarket, Thursday Wednesday, at 10

New Romney, Monday, at 12 Chard, Tuesday, at 11

Oldham,* Wednesday, at 9.30 Clacton-on-Sea, Wednesday. at Pershore, Thursday, at 10 10.30

Rhyl, Friday
Clerkenwell, Tuesday, Wednesday, St. Albans, Monday, at 10
Thursday, and Friday

Saxmundham, Tuesday
Colchester, Tuesday, at 10

Sheerness. Thursday, at 10 Crewe,* Wednesday, at 10

Sittingbourne, Friday, at 10.30 Denbigh, Tuesday

Solihull, Friday Dereham. * Tuesday, at 10

Southport: Tuesday, at 10 Dover, Wednesday, at 10

Stamford,* Monday, at 1.30 Eastbourne, Tuesday (R. By), at Stockport, Friday, at 10 2.30

Stowmarket, Friday Felixstowe. Monday, at 11.15

Stroud, Tuesday Flint, Monday

Tewkesbury, Monday
Folkestone. Tuesday, at 10

Westminster, Friday
Great Grimsby, Wednesday (R. Whitchurch,* Saturday, at 10
By), at 10.30

Wigan,* Tuesday (R. By at 11), Halesworth, Wednesday

at 9 Halstead, Monday, at 12

Winchcomb, Wednesday Harleston, Thursday, at 12

Windsor, Thursday, at 10 Harwich, Thursday, at 12

Winsford.* Tuesday, at 2 Holywell, Wednesday

Wood Green, Monday, at 10.30 Honiton, Monday, at 10.30

Wymondham, Friday, at 10 • Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary

SANITARY ASSURANCE.—Before renting or purchasing a house it is advisable to obtain an independent report on the condition of the Drains, Sanitary Fittinge, and Water Supply. Moderate fees for Sanitary Inspections on application to the Sanitary Engineering Company, 115. Victoria-street, Westminster, 'Phone, Westminster 316. "Sanitation,” London.-[ADVT.]

CRIMINAL LAW AND THE JURIS

DICTION OF MAGISTRATES.

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. Abingdon, Thursday, Oct. 19

Grimsby, Tuesday, Oct. 24 Bedford, Thursday, Oct. 5

Guildiord Saturday, Oct. 7 Berwick-upon-Tweed, Friday, Oct. 6 Lythe, Saturday, Oct. 28 Birmingham, Monday, Oct. 9, at 11.15 Leicester, Monday, Oct 16 Blackburn, Friday, Oct. 27

Liverpool, Tuesday, Oct. 3 Bournemouth, Tuesday, Oct, 10

Manchester, Monday, Oct. 2 Bradford, Tuesday, Oct. 3

Merthyr Tydfil, Wednesday, Oct. 18 Bridgnorth, Wednesday, Oct. 18

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Friday, Oct. 20 Brighton, Monday, Oct. 16

Northampton, Friday, Oct. 13 Cainbridge, Monday, Oct. 9

Portsmouth, Thursday, Oct. 5 Chester, Friday, Oct. 20

Sandwich. Friday, Oct. 6, at 12.30 Croydon, Tuesday, Oct. 10, at 10

Shefeld, Monday, Oct. 2 Derby, Thursday, Oct. 19, at 10.30 Shrewsbury, Friday, Oct, 13 Devizes, Monday, Oct. 9

Swansea, Friday, Sept. 29 Doncaster, Thursday, Oct. 5

Thetford, Friday, Oct. 28 Dover, Monday, Oct. 2

Warwick, Thursday, Oct. 12 Dudley, Friday, Oct. 6, at 10.30

Wenlock, Friday, Oct. 13 Exeter, Tuesday, Oct. 3

West Ham, Friday, Sept. 29, at 10.30 Folkestone, Monday, Oct. 2, at 11 Wolverhampton, Friday, Oct. 6, at 10. Great Yarmouth, Monday, Oct. 9, at 10,30

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

ST. ANDREWS HONOURS FOR LAWYERS. The list of honorary degrees in law conferred in connection with the celebration of the five hundredth appiversary of the foundation of the University of St. Andrewe-described by the late Lord Selborne as the most ancient seat of learning in a land whose citizens are distin. guished in every sphere in wbich distinotion can be gained contains the names of several lawyers. Below we give them, and the sobievements following are taken from the official list as presented by the Dean to the Chancellor wben the recipients were capped :

The Right Honourable Herbert Henry Asquith, Privy Councillor, Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, Member of Parliament for East Fife since 1886, barrister-at-law, formerly Scholar and Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, Craven University Scholar in Clasejos, Home Seoretary 1892-5. Chancellor of the Exchequer 1905.8, Rector of the University of Glasgow (1905.8), and of Aberdeen (1908 11).

Georg Frommbold, Geheimer Justiz-Rat, Professor of German Law and Commercial Law in the University of Greifswald, is the author of several important works on German Law, and especially on the Law of Succession and loberitance. His book on the Influence of Religion on the Laws of the Germans deals with a subject of great importance.

The Right Honourable Sir Joho Hay Athole Macdonald, P.C., K.C.B., Lord Justice Clerk and Lord President of the Second Division of the Court of Session since 1888, Fellow of the Royal Society, Member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, Eosign-General of the Royal Company of Archers, Honorary Colonel of the Army Motor Reserve, Vice-President of the Royal United Service Institution and of the National Rifle Association ; formerly Sheriff of Robs and Sutherland and of Pertbsbire, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and Member of Parliament for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews. He bas done much to improve the Criminal Law and Procedure in Scotland, and bas carried through legislation wiib that end in view.

William Harrison Moore, Professor of Jurisprudence, Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne, barrister. Profeesor Moore was appointed Constitutional Adviser to the Government of Victoria in 1907. He is the author of several legal works and papere, the principal being on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

James Urquhart, Lord Provost of Dundee, has been associated with the public life of Dundee for sixteen years. He is a man of culture, a poet, a lawyer, and a man of affaire. An alumnus of Edinburgh University, he has been in business in Dundee as a solicitor for more than twenty years. During his public career Mr. Urqubart has been a magistrate for three years, treasurer for two years, and three years ago was unanimously elected Lord Provost of the city.

bis sins, at lost an opportunity to have bis guilt inquired into, and to have the benefit of mitigating circumstances. Such sanotuaries existed in Egypt, Greece, Palestine, and other Eastern and European countries. By the Levitical law six cities were set aside as cities of refuge.

These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the bojourner among them : that e zeryone that killeth any person un awares may flee thither.”

As superstition declined and the administration of justice became more regular, the use of these sanctuaries as asylums ceased. The idea, however, that the fugitive had a right to an asylum did not at once die out, and each country came to be regarded as an asylum for offenders against the laws of other countries.

But as the administration of justice in the different countries im. proved, as intercourse increased, and ignorance and prejudice regard. ing each other diminished, the notion that the fugitive bad a right to refuge and protection disappeared, and in its place was su betituted the right to expel or extradite any refugee from another country. An asylum, therefore, is not, strictly speaking, & right of the fugitive, but is a privilege which the country to which he has fled can either grant or refuse. It follows as a necessary consequence from the uurestricted sovereignty which every nation po seasses over its own territory.

EXTRADITION FROM TERRITORY OF FOREIGN COUNTRY. It may be said that, by the great weight of authority, no nation is bound, in the absence of treaty obligation, to deliver up a fugitive offender to the nation whose laws are violated. The Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, in the case of United States v. Rauscher (119 U S. 407; 30 L. ed. 425; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 222), said: “It is only in modern times that the nations of the earth have impused upon themselves the obligation of delivering up these fugitives from justice to the States where their crimes were committed, for trial and punishmeot. This has been done generally by treaties made by one independent Government with another. Prior to these treaties ard a part from them it may be stated as the general result of the writers upon international law that there was no well-defined obligation on one country to deliver up sucb fugitives to another, and though such delivery was often made, it was upon the principle of comity, and within the discretion of the Government whose action was invoked ; and it has never been recognised as among those obligations of one Government towards another which rest upon established principles of international law.”

Similar views were expressed by Chief Justice Tilgbman, of Pennsylvania, in Com ex rel. Short v. Deacon (10 Serg & R 125): “ The more deeply the subject is considered the more sensibly sball we feel its difficulties ; so that, upon the whole, the safest principle Beems to be that do State has an absolute and perfeot right to demand of another the delivery of a fugitive criminal, though it has what is called an imperfect right, that is, a right to ask it, as a matter of courtesy, good will, and mutual convenience. But a refusal to grant such request is no just cause of war.” Other judicial authorities in this country are to the same effect. The only im. portant exception is that of Chancellor Kent,

The princip'e has been acted upon by the various American Seoretaries of State in their dealings with foreigo nations. Tous Mr. Rush, when Secretary of State, in his note to Mr Hyde de Neuville, the 9th April 1817, eaid : “ The laws of nations embrace no provision for the surrender of persons who are fugitives from the offended lans of one country to the territory of ar.other. It is only by troaty that such surrender can take place.” Similar statements were made by Presi. dent Jefferson, Mr. Webster, and President Bucbanan when Secretaries of State.

But although, in the absence of treaty, one nation is cot bound to deliver up fugitives to another, tbere is no principle of international law to prevent its doing so of its own accord as a matter of comity or courtesy. And this has been done on numerous occasions. Thus Spain surrendered Tweed to the United States in 1876, before tbe conclusion of an extradition treaty between the two countries, and Morocco surrendered Stensland, the defaulting Chicago baoker.

The existence of a treaty which provides for extradition for certain crimes does not deprive either nation of the power and right to exercise its own discretion in cases not coming within the terms of the treaty.

The laws of some countries, however, including the United State and Great Britain, give no authority for the surrender of fugitives in the absence of treaty. This country bas, on numerous occasions, declined to surrender fugitives, on the ground of lack of power. Thus, Mr. Gresham, when Secretary of State, in a note to the Portuguese Minister on the 5th June 1895, said : “ In the absence of a treaty or an Act of Congress authorising it, the President bas po authority to cause the arrest and extradition to another country of an alleged criminal found within the jurisdiction of the United States."

Because of its lack of power to reciprocate, the United States bas, with a few exceptions, carefully refrained from requesting surrender of criminals from countries with which it has no extradition treaty ; and, on the few occasions when it did make the request, was careful to explain that it had no power to grant similar courtesies. Thus, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, ip bis instructions to Mr. Adee, Chargé d'Affaires, the 3rd Nov. 1876, referring to Spain's surrender of Tweed in that year before the conclusion of the extradition treaty between the two countries, said : “ The United States hes from time to time carefully avoided making requests for the surrender of criminals, for the reason, among others, that it might not be possible to reciprocate on such a matter. The Government of Spain, in its action in this case, bas appreciated the peouliarity of ihe case.” In 1896, Mr. Oiney,

THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM.
By ROBERT A. EDGAR, of the New York Bar.

(From Case and Comment ) The use of particular places as asylums where those accused of crime ould find refuge from the pursuing avenger of blood is very ancient. It arose at a time when stable Governments bad not yet been formed and regular judicial machinery established, when the right of private vengeance existed; when the rule was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” when the law was that “wboso sbeddeth man's blood, by man eball his blood be she],” when the slayer was pursued by a son or other relative of the elain man, and, if overtaken, sum. marily killed. It is not strange, therefore, that sentiments of justice, humanity, and religion, prompted men to seek some means to save the offender from indiscriminating vengeanoe. Pursued by the avenger, the hunted transgressor fled to some shrine, temple, church, or other sanctuary, and there a, a refugee and suppliant sought protection. Owing to its sacred character, it was considered an act of sacrilege and impiety worthy of death to kill him there or to drag him thence. Here he obtained, if not a pardon for bis offenoe and a remission of

.

violatee or tends to elude the laws of the country, by convertiog, lor example, the legation into a refuge for criminals or into a habitation of conspiracy against the establisbed Government, the privilege of inviolability of domicil disappears, and the offended State is fully warranted in refusing to the dwelling of the agent the benefit of an immunity whicb reason and justice cease to sustain."

The position wbich this country has taken on the question of asylum is well illuatrated in a letter from Mr. Seward, when Secretary of State, to Mr. Hovey, Minister to Peru, the 25th Feb. 1867, at & time of great political excitement in that country : “I observe that

you have taken these positions, viz., that Peru is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a Christian nation, and as such should be placed precisely in the position of the United States, France, England, and other Christian countries, and that the doctrine of asylum oannot be properly claimed or enforced in Peru, unless it be in exoeptional cases recognised by the universal law of nations ; that as soon as a legal charge of crime is made, whether political or not, you hold it to be the duty of the Minister in whose legation an offending party has taken refuge to leave him without interference to the authorities demanding his arrest. Again, that you claim no diplomatic power or right in Paru that your Government does not accord to the representative of Peru at Washington. These positions are altogether approved."

On the 5th Oct. 1875, Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Cushing, Minister to Spain, spoke as follows of the practice of revolutionisis reeorting to the legations for refuge : “ The frequency of resort in Spaio to ibe legations for refuge, and the fact mentioned by you that nobody there disputes the clain of asylam, but that it has become, as it were, the common law of the land, may be accounted for by the prevalence of conspiracy as means of changing a Cabinet or a Government,' and the continued tolerance of the usage, is an encouragement of this tendenog to conspiracy.

· It is an annoyance and embarrasement, probably, to the Ministers whose legations are thus used, but certainly to the Gorernuents of those Ministers, and, as facilitating and encouraging chronic conspiracy and rebellion, it is wrong to the Government and to the people where it is practised — a wrong to the people, even though the Ministry of tbe time may not remonstrate, looking to the possibility of finding a convenient shelter when their own day of reckoping and of flight may

The United States has, however, on several occasions, countenanced the use of its legations as a temporary refuge to persons fleeing from mob violence unul order could be established, and in the interregnum between the overturning of one Government and the establishing of another. Thje bas been particularly the cage at Hayti, where rebellions and revolutions bad become so common as almost to have become the pormal condition of affairs.

Other nations have been very free in granting protection to members of the unsuccessful parties in the numerous revolutions which have occurred in South America. In the United States the eupremacy of the local law has been so rigorously maintained that the right of asylum has never existed, though the right has probably been claimed and granted in every other independent country in America. In 1794, Bradford, Attorney General, rendered an opinion that the house of a foreign Minister could not be made an asylum for a guilty por, it was apprebended, a prison for an innocent one ; and that although the Minister's bo use be exempt from the ordinary jurisdiction of the country, yet, in such case, “recourse would be had to the inter position of the extraordinary powers of the State.”

premising that tbe Government of the United States could not, in the absence of treaty, surrender a fugitive from justice, and iberelore could not promise reciprocity, stated that, upon the requisition of the Governor of Massachusetts, the Department of State would “ make the attempt ” to obtain the surrender of a fugitive criminal from Venezuela 48 an aot of courieey.”

The United States has, however, on several occasions, recovered fugitives from other countries with which no extradition treaties existed, because they had been surrendered as an act of courtesy.

Extradition treaties covering the most important crimes have been negotiated with most of the civilised nations of the eartb.

Although there was some doubt about the matter at first, it may now be taken as settled dootrine that the surrender of a fugitive cannot be made by a State, but is a national act, and can only be done by the United States or by its orders. The United States may, however, by treaty or statute, confer such authority upon State ofhciale ; and in the extradition treaty wib Mexico of the ilth Deo. 1861 a limited authority was conferred upon certain State oflicials in the border States.

ASYLUM IN LEGATIONS. In order to secure the independence of ambassadors in the discharge of their functions, the ambassador, his family, and suite are exempt from the operation of looal law. This exemption is called extra-territoriality, the ambassador being considered, by a fiction of law, as beyond the territory and jariadiction of the country to which he is accredited. In order to secure his person from insult and his pa pers from search, the house in which he lives enjoys great immunity, and is inaccessible to the ordinary officers of justice. This immunity is known as the io violability of the diplomatic hotel or residence. “ If it can be rightly entered at all without the consent of its occupant, it can only be so entered in consequence of an order emanating from the supreme authority of the country in wbioh the Minister resides, and for whicb it will be held responsible by his Government." It is not trange, therefore, that with the abolition of sanctuaries and cities of reluge, that many persons who were wanted for ordinary or political offences sought refuge in the houses of foreign Ministers. Io early times most exaggerated claims ¡were made by ambassadors as to the extent of their privileges and mmunities. In some cities, notably Rome, Madrid, and Venice, these 'ncluded what is known as the freedom of the quarter (franchise des quartiers) by which not only the Minister's house, but the quarter or ward of the city in which he lived, enjoyed an immunity from local law. In consequence of the gross abuses of tbis privilege by reason of criminals and scalawags of all kinds resorting thither to the detriment of the good order of the city and State, Pope Innocent XI. annoupoed that thereafter he would no: receive any ambassador at Rome who would not relinquish the privilege. All did so with the exception of Louis XIV., King of France, who, when the example of his brethren was pointed out to him as one reason why he should also give up the privilege, replied with his accustomed arrogance that bis Crown should never be ruled by the example of others; that God had established it as an example and guide to others, and that he had resolved, so long as he reigned, never to let it be deprived of any of ite rights. Ao armed conflict ensued before the matter was finally compromised. In one instance in violability was claimed and tacitly allowed for the French Ambassador's coach in which he was transporting some refugees from the legation in Rome to the sea.

Because they had been grossly abused, the e extended privileges were gradually curtailed. One case will be cited to mark the decline. lo 1726, the Duke of Rippesda, Minister of Finance and foreign Affaire to Philip V. of Spain, being apprehensive concerning his safety, Bougbt refuge. uninvited, in the house of the British Ambassador, though no charges were then pending against him. With the consent of the Spanish Government he was allowed to remain for a time. But on discovering that he had abstracted important State pa pers the Government sought advice from the Council of Castile wbether he could be seized. The latter replied tbat it would “operate to the subversion and utter ruiv [of Sovereigns) if persons who had been intrusted with the finances, the powers and the secrets of the State, nere, when guilty of violating the date of their office, allowed to take shelter uodec a privilege which had been granted to the house of ambaseadors in favour of only ordinary offenders.” He was accordingly seized. The Eoglibb Foreign Minister, in protesting. did go on the ground tbat, under the circumstances, an opportunity should have been given for the peaceable surreoder of Ripperda, but without expressing any opinion as to whether or not the ambassador bad a right to protect bim. The action of the Spanish authorities on this occasion bas met the approval of most writers on interuational law.

Formerly the right of asylum was granted only in case of common criminals, and not in the case of political offendere. But later the situation was reversed, and asylum is now never granted in case of ordinary orimjoals, but only in case of political offendere when it is granted at all. As Bynkershock pertinerily asked : “Are ambassadors sent to barbour thieves ?” It is seldom, if ever, gtapted except in case of great civil disturbance. Calso said that “in the midst of civil disturbances" a Minister's dwelling can and ought to offer an assured refuge “to political persons whom danger to life forces on the moment to take refuge there." But he also laye down the following limitations to inviolability of a Minister's bouse. “The dwelling of a public Minister is inviolable, in so far as it affects things indispensable to his official service and to the free and regular exercise of his functions; but whenever the conduct or the imprudent attitude of a diplomatic agent puts in peril the peace of the State,

come.