the punishment of a parent who does not support a minor child, and which in terms apply to parents who never were residents of the State where such child lived when such support was not furnished, have been upheld, even if such parent did not intend that the child would go to such State, and had no reason to believe that he would do so." In these cases the criminal is held for the continuance or the result of a condition for which he is undoubtedly responsible, but which does not follow from any act done by the accused in the State which seeks to punish it.

A case midway between the two preceding classes of cases is one in which a forgery is uttered and the forger expects that it will be presented by an innocent person in another State. A statute which provides for punishing the forger in the State in which such instrument is presented is upheld," although it is, of course, perfectly possible that the forgery may be discovered before the instrument is brought into such State, and that accordingly such instrument may never be presented.

In the foregoing cases the act within the State was either committed without any intervening agency or by means of an intervening agency of an innocent person. A different result has been reached in many cases where the intervening agency was that of a guilty person. In some cases it has been held that the person who performs only that part of the act which is done outside of the State can not be punished within the State in which the guilty agent performed the rest of such act." This result, however, does not seem to turn on any theory which the courts hold as to the power of the State to provide for punishing such acts; but rather to turn on the common law distinction between a principal and an accessory before the fact. At common law the crime of the accessory before the fact was not the crime of his principal, but the crime of inducing his principal to commit such crime; and the crime of the accessory was, therefore, committed where he so induced the principal to act, and not where the principal acted. Accordingly, where this distinction prevailed, the accessory could be punished only where he thus induced the principal to act, and not where the principal acted. Where the common law distinction does not exist or where it has been abolished," the State in which any part of the wrongful act is committed by a guilty agent, has power to punish all persons who took part in such act even if they were not present physically within such State when such act was done. Probably, if the crime were committed so close to a State line that all involved could be regarded as principles, the common law would permit the State in which the criminal act was done to punish the criminals who were in the other State at the time that such act was done.

48

3. Statutes which attempt to punish an extraterritorial act which is not committed by a subject and which can not be explained by the territorial theory, but which tends to injure the State or its subjecs, are very rare; and the

Abandoning child. In re Fowles, 89 Kan. 430 (1913); State v. Sanner, 81 O. S. 393, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1093, 90 N. E. 1007. But compare In re Poage, 87 O. S. 72, 100 N. E. 125. For the opposite view see obiter in Ex parte Kuhns, 36 Nev. 487, 137 Pac. 83.

Adams v. People, 1 N. Y. 173 (1848), affirming People v. Adams, 3 Denio 190 (1846).

118.

"Ferrill v. Commonwealth, 62 Ky (1 Duv.) 153; State v. Moore, 46 N. H. (6 Foster) 448; State v. Wyckoff, 31 N. J. L. (II Vr.) 65 (1864). Contra State v. Grady, 34 Conn. 48As in misdemeanors. Commonwealth v. Eggleston, 128 Mass. 408. See for an offense punished by a statutory penalty Barkhamsted v. Parsons, 3 Conn. 1. See for conspiracy Hyde v. U. S., 225 U. S. 347; Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392; Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 469, 10 Am. Dec. 475. 49 Commonwealth v. Smith, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 243.

courts of the States of the United States have generally said that the State had no power to enact them." This result has been reached even where the act directly injures the State itself. A statute which provides for punishing an unnaturalized foreigner for voting at a State election which was held outside of the limits of the State was said to be invalid," although it was said that if such election could be held in such place the State might punish its own subjects for violating the provisions of such statute. A statute which provides for punishing residents of neighboring States who should counterfeit the bills of credit of North Carolina was held to be invalid as applied to one who never was a citizen of North Carolina, and who committed such forgery in Virginia." If the courts reach this result where the act tends to injure the State directly, it is only natural to expect that they will reach the same result where the act tends to injure the State only through its subjects. Acordingly It has been held that the State can not make it a crime for one who is not a resident and not a subject of such State to sell a person who shall have been forcibly taken, inveigled, or kidnapped from such State." A non-resident who owns land which is bounded by the State line and who turns his cattle loose in Missouri, knowing that they would go across the line into Arkansas, can not be punished in Arkansas for permitting his stock to run at large in that State."

The reasoning by which the foregoing results have been reached would, apparently, apply to cases in which the criminal had gone at once to the State whose laws he had offended and had remained there permanently. It would seem that the only remedy of such State would be to insist that the State within whose territorial jurisdiction he was when he committed the crime, should institute extradition proceedings; that the injured State should then surrender him as a fugitive from justice; and that the other State should then punish him. If such other State should refuse so to do, on the ground that the injured State now had jurisdiction of the criminal and could inflict punishment directly, he could not, apparently, be punished at all under this theory. Since our courts have declared that the State is powerless by means of the administration of criminal justice to protect itself against extraterritorial acts which tend to injure the State itself, or against the sale of its subjects into slavery, the assertion by the court of Texas of the power of the State to punish persons not its subjects and not residents, who, while without the State,

Beattie v. State, 73 Ark. 428, 84 S. W. 477; People v. Merrill, 2 Park, Crim. (N. Y.) 590; State v. Knight, 3 N. Car. (2 Hayw.) 109, Taylor, 65; Commonwealth v. Kunzmann, 41 Pa. St. 429.

"Our legislature has no extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and when it forbids in unquallfled terms the doing of an act It must always be understood that the thing is only forbidden within this State." Bronson, J., Charles v. People, 1 N. Y. 180 (184). "The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories, except so far as regards its own citizens." The Apollon, 9 Wheat, 362.

51 Commonwealth v. Kunzman, 41 Pa. St. 429.

52 State v. Knight, 3 N. C. (2 Hayw.) 109, Taylor, 65.

3 People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. (N. Y.) 590.

"The legislature of this State has no power to punish a resident of Missouri for a lawful act done in that State. To undertake to arrest and fine a resident of Missouri because he does not prevent his cattle from straying into this State would be to assume a jurisdiction over the residents of that State never intended by the statute, and beyond the power of the legislature to confer." Beattie v. State, 73 Ark. 428, 84 8. W. 477.

It has been held, however, that one who overflows a highway in New Hampshire by means of a dam may be punished in New Hampshire, although the dam is in Maine. State v. Lord, 16 N. H. 357.

forge instruments affecting the title to lands within such State," must be regarded as directly opposed to the foregoing authorities. While it might be possible to explain this decision upon the ground that some part of the act such as the recording of the instrument would inevitably be done in the State in which the land was situated, the court did not explain its conclusion, upon any such theory, but after considering some of the earlier cases in which the contrary view was expressed, boldly asserted the power of the State to protect itself against such wrongs." It may be that the peculiarly local character of land under our law may explain this decision; or it may be possible that the assimilation by the courts of Texas of some of the theories of the civil law may have produced this result.

56

In conclusion, then, it would appear that our courts have been influenced by their familiarity with the attempted exercise of power to give extraterritorial effect to statutes rather than by other considerations. If our law is thoroughly familiar with a certain kind of exercise of power, such as the power over a vessel sailing under the flag of the State, the existence of such power is assumed without question. If our law is not quite so familiar with the exercise of another kind of such power, as in the case of the power of the State over its subjects, the existence of that power is conceded, although with some hesitation. If the attempt to exercise the power has been rare, as in the case of the attempt of the State to protect itself against one who is not a subject and who injures the State by some act done within the territorial limits of another State, the power is generally denied.

Thus the courts have, as far as possible, limited the inherent power of the State to protect itself; and they have forced the State to make use of diplomatic channels as the sole means of securing redress in such cases. While the power to punish one who is not a subject for an act which is done in another State, of which, perhaps, he is a subject, should be reserved for offenses of the most serious nature and for cases in which the exercise of such power will not involve the injured State with the State within which such act is done, it is respectfully submitted that the power itself is one which is clearly inherent in every State, and which should not be denied to the legislature unless some specific constitutional provision enacted by an authority higher than that of the legislature forbids its exercise.

The CHAIRMAN. The next paper is by Mr. Shick, the secretary of the bureau of comparative law of the American Bar Association. He has kindly prepared a paper on the general subject, How may lawyers of one country be most easily and effectively made acquainted with the laws of another country? Mr. Shick is ill and unable to be present. I will therefore ask Mr. Phanor J. Eder to read the paper.

"Hanks v. State, 13 Tex. App. 289. See also Hann v. State, 4 Tex. App. 645.

In an earlier Texas case the right to punish such an offense was asserted, apparently on the theory that a part of the act was done in Texas. In that case a conspiracy to forge Texas land titles was entered into in Texas, and such instrument was forged in Illinois, the facsimile of county officials and bogus seals being obtained in Texas, and the instrument being returned to Texas and there placed on record. It was held that a crime against the State of Texas was committed even under the laws in force before the act of 1876, providing specifically for punishing persons who commit offenses against the State of Texas outside of the State. Ex parte Rogers, 10 Tex. App. 655 (1881). Hanks v. State, 13 Tex. App. 289.

68436-17-VOL VII- -39

HOW MAY LAWYERS OF ONE COUNTRY BE MOST EASILY AND EFFECTIVELY MADE ACQUAINTED WITH THE LAWS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY?

By ROBERT P. SHICK,

Secretary Bureau of Comparative Law of the American Bar Association.

The typical attitude of mind of the average lawyer is perhaps that of an eminent jurist, to whom this question was put, and his answer was, "What for, the legislator? Yes; to improve the laws of his country, 'change' is not synonymous with

A message from war-torn Germany, in the throes of the greatest war the world has ever seen, sounds, however, the true note, and represents the true point of view in respect to this topic.

In the number of the Review of Comparative Jurisprudence and Political Economy, for the quarter ending in June, published in Berlin in July, 1915, is an article by Dr. Hans Wehberg, of Dusseldorf. Reviewing the work of the International Society of Compara tive Jurisprudence and Political Economy, of Berlin, and particularly its twentieth anni versary, in 1914, he says:

The knowledge of foreign laws is vitally necessary for a national jurisprudence, and upon calm reflection it will appear that every isolation in this domain works harm only to the particular State. It is a general conviction that a State, in the development of modern national laws, must make use of the experience, not only of its own, but also of foreign peoples. This has been recognized particularly in the recent German efforts at codification. It is not a question whether a new institution has been borrowed from the foreign law or from the domestic law, but it is a question only, whether this innovation may be made useful to the particular people, and will afford an enrichment of its Jurisprudence, or should one refuse to accept a principle, whose introduction would be of immeasurable blessing to his own people, because it has grown up in the territory of a nation at the time not particularly friendly in a political sense. Since the economical rivalry of nations has become stronger, the national economical life requires the best possible law. For this furnishes for trade and commerce the only sure foundation for competitive gain, and he who would strengthen and protect his own nation in its economical struggles must also seek to improve his national law by the introduction of meritorious principles of the foreign law. It would end only in great self-deception and self-harm for the nation if it would not imitate the best methods of other peoples. The flood of development can not be diverted into a new course. It has become a world-wide economical struggle, and as such, requires a world-wide law. The development of mankind is a natural progress, that we can, it is true, influence, but in the main can not change at all. The advances in technical matters, which bind lands and peoples to one another, and bring all States intellectually and economically nearer to one another, will become even greater after the war, and trade and commerce will more than ever strive for a uniform law.

More than ever has this war brought to the hearts of Governments and peoples a hope for the methods of peaceful settlement of disputes, and a desire to develop these methods and to create norms of law of even larger comprehension for the relations between States, It is therefore a question of using every human effort to prevent for the longest possible time the return of bloody conflicts between States. For the real interests of States tend more and more to the cooperation of Governments.

If it be recognized that the real point of view is that an international law is a vital necessity to the life of a State, then it follows as a natural consequence that everything possible should be done to extend its development. An ideal international law, as we must strive to make it, is only possible when international jurisprudence does not pursue the Utopia of a German international law, but seeks to set up simplified norms and uniform rules for construction through the close cooperation with the learned of all other lands. The nations must work upon one another in the way of instruction, but not through bitter and harsh words of partisanship, whenever it becomes a question of labor among savants. The problems are great questions of peoples and mankind. The problems are earnest and hard, as yet enveloped in many shadows. as in any scientific contention earnestly and honorably maintained, there should be no place for harsh words of offensive criticism. The impoliteness of offensive comments upon a scientific opponent damages only the struggle for the common large purpose, viz, the firm belief of all peoples and States that the only firm and sure foundation builds for peace upon earth.

Just

We Germans would be wrong if we were to consider our juristical abilities superior to those of all other peoples, and therefore entertain the opinion that not we, but they, could obtain any advantage from the common labor. The truth is quite the

contrary.

A glowing tribute is paid to the French Prof. Renault, to Asser, and others from France, Belgium, and other smaller States, in the field of private international law and at The Hague tribunal and conference there.

Each nation has its own peculiar virtues, and especially is this true in relation to Juristical methods, and it is useful to learn to know these.

We must be international, we must work together in an international way, so that the national values may not in anywise be lost. Therefore it remains now, as before, a noble aim to work together with the experts of all lands in confidence of the possibilities of the ever stronger unification of law.

The acquaintance with foreign laws for the purposes of general culture will not be discussed here.

The acquaintance with foreign law, however (1), for the purposes of comparative law or jurisprudence and the improvement of the national or domestic law thereby attainable, viewing comparative law as a practical science, and (2) on any particular point as to which a practicing lawyer needs to advise his client or in litigated matters to advise the court, presents the real questions, I take it, that will be of interest to this body.

For the very assembling of these delegates in a Pan American scientific congress connotes Pan American questions of law as a science involving domestic and international human relations, political, economical, social, and otherwise, that require rules of conduct for the governance of such relations.

The solution of these problems, growing in importance every day, and more difficult of solution, requires an approach thereto in the spirit or attitude of mind just defined in the words of Dr. Wehberg. The immediate work is educational, the quickening of interest in the study of comparative law on our American continents and the wide diffusion of the knowledge of these laws.

The means to this end are at hand and we have the benefit of the experience of other nations in this field. These agencies need to be more fully developed in our own country, similar agencies created in countries now lacking them, and a proper cooperation between these agencies in an international way brought about.

1. COMPARATIVE LAW BUREAUS OR SOCIETIES.

1. These should be established, their membership increased, funds supplied for their educational work, either from governmental sources or private endowments, communications between such societies increased, and a general spirit of cooperation between those "learned in the law" in all countries encouraged.

With ampler funds at their disposal and with governmental or quasi-official support these societies would be enabled to

(a) Issue publications of foreign laws in handy form, both in the original language and translations, and likewise increase the scope of utility of their periodicals.

(b) Sudsidize or otherwise aid in having published original elementary books on foreign law, i. e., books in the local language giving an outline of the foreign law in comparison with the local law. Local lawyers can not readily grasp foreign law by the mere translation of foreign books upon the foreign law. The use of the local language alone will not give this insight. It is necessary to present the foreign law to the local lawyer in a background of his own law, so that he may readily understand the foreign equivalents of substantive law and procedure. Particularly is this true where the judicial system of the foreign country operates upon an entirely different basis, has different powers and functions. Such books, as well as translations, in order to be readily intelligible to the local lawyer, must be prepared by persons not only qualified in the foreign language but also in the foreign constitutional and legal structures as a whole.

(c) Either alone or in cooperation with law schools, universities, or institutions of the character, for instance, of the Carnegie Endowment, to have courses given on foreign law, both by resident lawyers specializing therein and by persons specially invited from foreign countries to deliver courses of lectures upon the law and legal systems of those countries.

Foreign lawyers acquainted with the local language and legal customs or local lawyers acquainted with the foreign law and legal customs are equally in a position to give an intelligent grasp to a large number of hearers. Opportunity should be given by questions propounded to the lecturer to clear up doubtful points. Indeed, a course of lectures might very well be accompanied also by a kind of seminar wherein a running commentary can be interspersed with discussion, conversation, and explanation generally between lecturer and audience. Worthy of mention here is a course of lectures on Anglo-American law delivered by Arthur K. Kuhn, Esq., an associate editor on the staff of the Comparative Law Bureau of the American Bar Association, at the University of Zurich in 1914, in which he was able to put into practice some of the ideas above outlined with good effect. The lectures were attended not only by members of the bar, but by important members of the banking and business community engaged in transaction with England, the British colonies, and the United States.

(d) To have salaried officials or clerks and to maintain permanent headquarters, with facilities for the collection of books and the establishment of a library for this special field.

2. There should be greater cooperation between organizations working along allied lines in this field. In the United States of America, for instance, and with a special reference to Pan American affairs, there is a certain duplication of work as between various Government bureaus, the Pan American Union, the Bureau of Comparative Law,