mination of the rules of law, "the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations." The statute provides that, apart from agreement, either English or French may be used by any party, that parties may be represented by agents, counsel or advocates, and that the Court may make rules of procedure. Questions are to be decided by a majority, the President, in the event of an equality of votes, is to have a casting vote. Each judgment must give the reasons upon which it is based, and the names of the Judges taking part in it; a dissenting opinion is permitted.

The protocol containing the statute thus establishing the Court had, by January 27th last, been signed by forty-five and ratified by thirty States, while eighteen had signed and nine ratified the additional protocol covering the optional clause conferring compulsory jurisdiction. The British Empire was not one of these, the ground taken by Mr. Balfour being that since the Court was limited to applying existing rules of international law, it would be much better to allow the voluntary jurisdiction of the Court to grow and develop gradually than to run the risk of the whole machinery being set at naught by some state refusing to permit itself to be destroyed by the rigid application of these, possibly in some cases antiquated, rules.

At its meeting in 1921 the Assembly and Council proceeded to the election of the Judges, with the result that one of the eleven Judges was chosen from each of the following countries: The United States, Brazil, the British Empire, Cuba, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, the four Deputy Judges being elected from China, Norway, Rumania, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. Viscount Finlay was the British Judge selected, and Mr. John Bassett Moore the Judge from the United States. Biographical notes of these and the other Judges and Deputy Judges are to be found in the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, No. 9, of 1921.

The opening of the Court took place at The Hague on February 15th, 1922, when Mr. Max Huber (Netherlands), Professor of International Law and Public Law at the University of Zurich, was elected its first President, and M. Charles André Weiss (France), Professor of Public and Private International Law at the University of Paris, Vice-President. A registrar was selected and a committee appointed to draft the rules of procedure, which were adopted on the 24th of May, 1922, and contained all the provisions necessary for the regula

tion of the business of the Court, including the assignment of the several Judges and Deputy Judges to the three Chambers or Divisions. The general character of the rules is what would be expected in the circumstances, though it may be noted that it is specified that the registrar is to be found at the office of the Court in the Peace Palace at The Hague only between two and four o'clock on five days of the week, with the exception of his main annual vacation, which is not to exceed two months. The main annual vacation of the President is rather longer; it is not to exceed three.

This somewhat extended account of the Permanent Court of International Justice is justified by the importance of its establishment. Until the states lately our enemies and Russia are admitted to the League of Nations and all its members accept the compulsory article of the Statute, the ideal scope of the tribunal cannot be said to have been attained. Their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court, even without becoming members of the League of Nations, was, however, provided for under the authority given by the Statute at a meeting of the Council of the League on May 31st last, when provision was made for states not members of the League to file with the registrar of the Court a declaration submitting to its jurisdiction, either generally or for the purpose of a specified case. Even if this right is not exercised, the establishment of the Court marks the greatest forward step ever taken in the direction of giving effect to the rule of law throughout the world. Provided general strong popular support of the Court is forthcoming, there can be no doubt that the principle upon which it is founded will secure a constantly increasing authority, and the world may reasonably hope that progress along the lines now definitely laid down will ultimately make the rule of law as nearly absolute in international affairs as it now is in domestic.

Your Committee beg to report as follows:

In all civilized countries this is regarded as a subject of first importance. The acute private suffering and the enormous public expenditures involved by the commission of crimes particularly in large towns and cities are now more than ever being considered with a view to alleviating the one and reducing the other.

Our neighbours to the south in the United States of America have felt compelled through various circumstances to take an intense interest in the work, and along many lines with great success.

We in Canada are treading the same pathway in some respects ahead of the U. S. A. but in many vital things, behind them.

This has led to suggestions of co-operation so that each country may absorb the benefits and avoid the mistakes of the other, and together we may make more satisfactory progress. With this object in view, some time ago, Mr. James Bronson Reynolds, of North Haven, Conn., U. S. A., President of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, communicated with His Honour Sir James A. M. Aikins, Kt., K.C., President of the Canadian Bar Association, with a view to united and harmonious action in both countries along parallel lines.

CANADIAN COMMITTEE.

At the meeting of the Council of the Canadian Bar Association held in Montreal in March, 1922, provision was made for the appointment of a Committee to collaborate with the above American Institute and report to this Annual Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association.

The following Committee was appointed: Mr. H. C. Shaw, Police Magistrate, Vancouver, B. C.; Hon. Mr. Justice Taylor, Moose Jaw, Sask.; Mr. R. B. Graham, K.C., Crown Prosecutor, Winnipeg, Man.; Mr. R. M. Matheson, K.C., Brandon, Man.; Mr. W. J. O'Hearn, K.C., Police Magistrate, Halifax, N. S.; Mr. George S. Inman, K.C., Charlottetown, P. E. I.

The President acting by authority from the Council appointed Emerson Coatsworth, Senior Judge of the County of York, Ontario, as Chairman of the Committee, and this Report is the result of their efforts to present a reasonably full outline of the many phases of the question at this period.

GENERAL STATEMENT.

At the outset, the Committee desires frankly to state that while from the standpoint of humanity and economy there should be a different treatment of prisoners than at present, we repudiate any thought or plan of pampering or petting them, or to use the street expression, "coddling the criminal."

In our opinion, each offender is entitled to a chance or even chances to make good, but he must make good or be relegated permanently or indeterminately to such custody as will prevent his committing further crimes. Canadians do not profess to be idealists except so far as the ideal is capable of being worked out successfully in hard every day practice.

THE PROBLEMS.

Upon entering the discussion we find the great problem is not so much in the law as in dealing with the criminal and administering the law.

THE CRIMINAL CODE.

There is no doubt the Criminal Code ought to be periodically revised and that not merely a departmental or haphazard parliamentary revision, but one based on the practical experience of those who particularly in large centres are charged with the enforcement of the law such as Judges, Magistrates, Crown Prosecutors and leading criminal lawyers. One might remark that it is always open to any of them to send in suggestions to the proper department, but men refrain from doing that through the haunting fear of the pigeon hole.

So far as we are informed not very many or drastic changes in the Code are proposed, but some of the more important are the following:

1. An amendment providing that after a man has committed a certain number of crimes or serious offences he might be classed as a professional criminal and be subject to indeterminate sentence without limit and thereafter his life

should be lived either in prison or under such strict supervision as would make the commission of further crimes practically impossible.

It may be noted that there is now an agitation in New York for legislation that after the third crime the offender might be imprisoned for life. In our view this seems too harsh and by an indeterminate sentence there is held out the hope and possibility of reformation.

It has been found with many a hardened criminal that there come psychological moments when kindness and confidence restore him to good citizenship.

2. To deal with the increasing menace of the mentally afflicted and feeble minded criminal, legislation is needed to provide for one or more central places of confinement such as asylums or hospitals on farms where they might be committed and kept out of the way of doing harm, and perform useful and profitable service.

3. Provision for a Public Defender in criminal courts as well as a Crown Prosecutor. The court has now the right to assign counsel, but it is not fully satisfactory.

4. While unfavorable to the cat-o-nine-tails and the lash except in extreme cases as at present, a modified form of corporal punishment might be provided, humiliating rather than painful, and commonly called spanking, for bad boys and young fellows who have got beyond parental control and restraint. A limited number of slaps, say not more than six in any one month, with a strap, has been found to have a very favorable effect in bringing them to their senses.

5. That in all Police or Magistrates' Courts Acts provision be made for establishing branches such as Domestic Relations and others at any time without further legislation.

6. Provision for the establishment of a court for criminal appeals.

7. Lack of space prevents allusion in more than a word to many of the subjects for Code amendments to which attention has been directed, but the following is at least a partial list of matters to be considered:-Interprovincial arrest; perjury; confessions; cautions; magistrates accepting bail after committal for trial; summary imprisonment for breach of bond to keep the peace; conviction for offence after charge of attempt; trial of indictable offences by magistrates; disclosing defence on preliminary hearing; certiorari; quashing convictions; etc., etc.