Mich., highly recommended by members of his profession, has been appointed marshal of the court. Concerning the personnel of the court, it is, without in any wise intending to reflect upon many capable and conscientious men who have served this government in consular and diplomatic positions in the East, perhaps not improper to quote from a private letter recently received by a leading newspaper editor from a prominent American business man at Shanghai, in which it was said that the members of the court

represented a new type of American officials in China.

Judge Wilfley opened court on December 17, 1906. His first order provided that all American attorneys who wished to be placed on the roll of attorneys for the court should first qualify by an examination and the presentation of satisfactory proofs of a good moral character. Eight applicants presented themselves for an examination and only two qualified. As a result of this purging, the American bar of the United States court for Shanghai consists of the United States district attorney, who presumably was not called upon to pass an examination, and Messrs. Fessenden and Jernygan of the firm of Jernygan and Fessenden. A monopoly in restraint of trade in violation of the fundamental principles of the common law has however, been avoided by the admission of duly certified members of thebar of consular courts of the various other nationalities on the principle of comity.

This action of the court aroused much criticism which has been to some extent reflected in the United States. As to the inherent power of the court to determine the qualifications necessary in a member of the bar by means of an examination there would seem to be no question. (Ex parte Garland 4, Wall 333 at 378; ex parte Secunbe 19 How 9 at 13.) As to the expediency of the somewhat drastic exercise of the power in the particular instance, opinions of men equally qualified to judge might well differ, and any opinion expressed at this distance would be necessarily uninformed. It can only be said that the learned judge has certainly failed to realize the hope humorously expressed by an English common law judge suddenly called upon to sit in the admiralty division, who opened court by remarking

And may there be no moaning of the bar when I put out to sea.

If the action of the court in regard to the qualifications of attorneys aroused the opposition of an important and vociferous profession and its friends, another policy initiated by the court and district attorney rallied to the support of the court all the best elements of the American

community. In the past the houses of prostitution conducted under American auspices have disgraced our country in the eyes of both European and Chinese and made the words "American girl" a by-word and reproach in all China. So bold and shameless had the proprietors of these establishments become that they actually had the effrontery to issue on special occasions invitations decorated with American flags. Informations were presented by the district attorney against all of the keepers of houses of ill-fame in Shanghai who claimed American nationality. The informations proceeded on the theory that the common law regards the prosecution of such a calling as a misdemeanor. Eight were arrested and brought into court. They were held under bond of $2000 and were only permitted to leave court in the company of the marshal to secure bail. On the hearing, four immediately pleaded guilty. The other four entered pleas in bar on the ground of citizenship. Two of them claimed to be Spaniards and presented registration certificates from the Spanish consul; one claimed to be a German and the other asserted English nationality. The court held that in the matter of proving citizenship the certificate of a consul was not conclusive but would be considered along with other evidence. As a result the Spanish certificates were immediately withdrawn and the holders admitted the jurisdiction of the court and pleaded guilty. The court later over-ruled the plea of the defendant who claimed British citizenship and she pleaded guilty. In view of a promise on the part of all the defendants to adjust their affairs and leave China, the court let them off with a fine of $1000, Mexican, apiece. The one remaining case appears to be still under advisement, but if the defendant is released, the Shanghai public will understand that she is not an "American girl."

Another case interesting in its facts as throwing light upon the new and strange conditions to which the principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence are being applied was a case in which a Chinese firm brought an action for deceit against an American who had leased to the plaintiffs certain grandstand privileges, including the right to conduct Chinese gambling games during the autumn race meets, this upon the distinct understanding that Chinese gambling was to be permitted by the authorities. On the face of this understanding, as the plaintiffs alleged, the the defendants took their money which they now refused to return, although, at the time of taking the same, said defendants well knew that Chinese gambling would not be permitted upon the premises. Here arises an interesting situation. We can well imagine a court in this country struggling with the doctrine of pari delicto and perhaps permitting the defendant to escape. Not so the United States court for

China. The principle of the square deal was vindicated by a decision which mulcted the defendant in damages while the district attorney was directed to institute criminal proceedings.

But the court has not been entirely engaged in qualifying its bar (purifying society). A number of civil and criminal cases of a general nature have been discussed by the court during its first term, involving questions of law both interesting and important. One defendant was prosecuted for obtaining money under false pretences. The charge was brought under the statute of 30 George II. and a motion to quash was made on the ground that the information did not charge a crime under the common law. This raised the difficult question of the construction of the term "common law" as used in the statute creating the court. The court appears to have taken the position that the term "common law" was to be construed to include those laws which would have been in force in the colonies after the change of sovereignty without further legislation, or in other words all the laws of England, written or unwritten, which were applicable to the colonies at the time of the declaration of independence. The opportunity to test this construction through an appeal to the United States court of appeals for the ninth judicial district was lost by the escape from Shanghai of the accused before he was sentenced.

In the next case which came before the court, the judge took precaution against the escape of the defendant. After the conviction and sentence of the accused, the court exercised the authority conferred by §5 of the act creating the court and modified rule 66 in force in the consular court as regards bail after conviction, providing that after conviction and appeal, bail should be allowed or denied in the discretion of the judge. The court then denied bail to the defendant on the ground that it appeared to him that the appeal was frivolous. Habeas corpus proceedings were begun on behalf of the defendant and it is reported in the press that he has been released on appeal to the United States court of appeals for the ninth judicial district. The grounds on which the court acted are not known.

These two cases have served to develop two questions which will doubtless provide ample opportunity for argument before the new court, namely the scope of the words "common law," and the nature of the power originally vested in the United States minister to make rules and regulations to supply the defects of the common law and the power now vested in the court to modify such rules so far as they relate to procedure. At a banquet of the American Association at Shanghai, Judge Wilfley, as reported in the Celestial Empire of December 22, 1906, in responding

to the toast, "The Judicial Department," defined the requisition of a typical American court as

First, honesty; second, courage; third, good sense, and fourth, a knowledge of the law.

All in all the new court seems to have grappled with energy the perplexing situation before it, and we may look forward to some new developments of the common law in this new field for American jurisprudence which will not only make for the betterment of conditions in China but throw some interesting light upon old legal problems in a new environment.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS

The year 1907 opened without any friction between Great Britain and the United States and it is to be hoped that the year will close without any. It is a pleasure to be able to state that the modus vivendi, safeguarding the American fishing rights within the Newfoundland waters, accomplished the purpose which the contracting countries had in mind. The rights of both parties were clearly set forth in advance of the fishing season, the imperial authorities had seen to it that these rights were in no instances violated by local ordinance or action, with the result that the fishing season of 1906-1907 closed without any untoward incident. If the modus vivendi (the text of which was in the Supplement to the January number, pp. 22-31) should be continued or if a permanent arrangement could be reached or if a treaty or convention could be negotiated which would clearly define and adequately protect the rights of American fishermen, a recurrent cause of friction would be removed.

For one brief moment an incident occurred at Jamaica which might have caused an unpleasant feeling if there had been any source of irritation existing between the two countries. The lamentable earthquake which destroyed Kingston and caused the death of many an inhabitant seemed to furnish opportunity to the jingo on both sides of the water to resort to favorite, but fortunately forgotten, methods. The landing of Admiral Davis at the request of subordinate authorities for protection of life, liberty and property did not meet with favor from the governor, and a thoughtless phrase written by the governor in a moment of excitement might have caused infinite trouble if it had not been disavowed by the English press and had it not been charitably received in this country. If Admiral Davis had landed without the consent of the local authorities he would have been guilty of a technical violation of

British sovereignty, but the owner of a house is not overmindful who enters it to put out a fire. An action of trespass under such circumstances is unknown, and the technical violation of sovereignty, had it occurred, would not have been the source of criticism by the rightminded. It is a fact, however, that Admiral Davis landed his men at the request of the local officials and therefore a human action does not have to defend itself.

The following colloquy occurred in parliament:

Mr. Collings asked the under-secretary for the colonies if it were in accordance with international law and international etiquette for the admiral of a foreign ship to land an armed force in a British colony without the permission of the governor of that colony.

Sir E. Grey [secretary of state for foreign affairs], who replied, said: The answer is in the negative, and I may add that in the incident to which the right honorable gentleman has previously referred no such right was ever claimed.

cheers.]

Mr. Collings: Was the right, or supposed right, exercised?

[Ministerial

Sir E. Grey: No, sir; if a right is not claimed you cannot say it has been exercised. What I am convinced of is that there was naturally in the presence of such a catastrophe a certain amount of misunderstanding. The action of the American admiral was inspired by the single-minded motive of humanity and the desire to remove suffering. [Cheers.] Any other construction placed upon his actions would be both unworthy and untrue. [Cheers.]

Mr. Collings: Does not the fact remain that in opposition to the governor of a British colony this armed force was landed, and that there was no disorder that would warrant any such action? [Opposition cheers.]

Sir E. Grey: No, sir. According to my information the question of the right honorable gentleman contains a statement of fact which is not borne out by the true aecounts of the occurrence. [Ministerial cheers.]

Mr. Collings asked Mr. Churchill when the papers referring to matters connected with the Jamaica earthquake and to Sir Alexander Swettenham's resignation would be issued.

Mr. Churchill [under secretary of state for the colonies]: The colonial secretary is in communication with the foreign secretary, and the question of publication is receiving consideration. I cannot say more at the moment as to whether any papers will be issued, and, if any are issued, what they will be.

Mr. Collings: Has the honorable gentleman not already made a promise that such papers should be issued?

Mr. Churchill: I am certainly not aware of any such promise as that suggested. The only statement that has been made is that we would consider whether papers should be laid and what papers. That process is still going on. [Laughter.]

The episode is mentioned here in no unkindly spirit. The burst of good feeling on both sides of the water makes one almost glad that the incident happened.

The appointment of the Right Honorable James Bryce as ambassa