France, Agreement between the United Kingdom and, respecting commercial travellers' samples. Signed at Paris Oct. 23, 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3855.) d.

France, Agreement between the United Kingdom and, supplementary to the money order convention of Sept. 21, 1887. Signed at Paris June 30, 1906. Foreign office. (cd. 3820.) d.

France, Convention between the United Kingdom and, for the exchange of money orders between the United Kingdom and various French colonies. Signed at Paris June 30, 1906. Foreign office. (cd. 3821.) 1d.

Hague conference. Correspondence respecting the second peace conference held at The Hague in 1907. [April, 1906, to Oct., 1907.] Foreign office. (cd. 3857.) 1s. 6d.

International treaty engagements, Accessions, etc., of foreign states to various. 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3783.)

d.

Liquor traffic in Africa, International convention respecting the. Signed at Brussels Nov. 30, 1906. Foreign office. (cd. 3856.) 1d.

New Hebrides, Order in Council providing for the exercise of H. M. jurisdiction within the, in accordance with the convention of Oct. 20, 1906, as amended by notes of Aug. 29, 1907. 29 p. Privy council. (Statutory rules and orders, 1907, No. 864.)

Nicaragua, Accession of, to the declaration signed at The Hague July 29, 1899, respecting expanding bullets and asphyxiating gases. Oct. 11, 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3819.)

d.

Nicaragua, Accessions of British colonies, etc., to the treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United Kingdom and. Signed at Managua July 28, 1905. 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3822.) d.

Sleeping sickness, Further paper respecting the proceedings of the first international conference on, held at London in June, 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3854.) 2d.

Transvaal, Further correspondence relating to legislation affecting Asiatics in the. [April, 1907, to Jan., 1908.] Colonial office. (cd. 3887.) 10d.

Turkey, Accession of, to the convention signed at Geneva July 6, 1906, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field. August 24, 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3781.) d.

jd.

United States, Agreement between the United Kingdom and the, respecting commercial travellers' samples entering the United Kingdom and import duties on British works of art entering the United States. Signed at London Nov. 19. 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 3853.) d.

Universal postal union. Agreement for the exchange of insured letters and boxes, 26th May, 1906. Post office. (cd. 3558.) 2d.

Universal postal union. Convention of Rome, 26th May, 1906. Post office. (cd. 3556.) 3d.

1907.

West Indies. List of laws dealing with the emigration of laborers from the British West Indian colonies to foreign countries. Colonial office. (cd. 3827.) d.

CANADA

France, Correspondence and memoranda in connection with the convention of 1907 respecting the commercial relations between Canada and. Ottawa, 1908. 29 p.

Provincial boundaries. Copy of letters, communications, memorials, petitions or documents, received during the past three years from the government of any province in the Dominion, relating to the extension. or alteration of the boundaries of any province of Canada. Ottawa, 1907.

48 p.

HONDURAS

Contestacion al manifiesto del Señor Presidente de la república dada por la Asamblea nacional constituyente. 1908. 13 p.

Laudo pronunciado por S. M. el Rey de España en la cuestion de limites entre las repúblicas de Honduras y Nicaragua precedido de una reseña del acto de su entrega oficial, de las alocuciones pronunciadas en él y del decreto No. 18 expedido por el poder ejecutivo. 1907. 31 p.

Manifiesto leído por el Señor Presidente provisional de la república de Honduras Dr. Gral. Don Miguel R. Davila ante la Asamblea nacional constituyente. 1908. 16 p.

NICARAGUA

Relaciones exteriores, Memoria de.. 1906-7. Managua. lii., 475 p. Departamento de relaciones exteriores.

PHILIP DE WITT PHAIR.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. AUGUSTUS C. UMBREIT.

Supreme Court of the United States, February, 1908.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the court:

The Disconto Gesellschaft, a banking corporation of Berlin, Germany, began an action in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, on August 17, 1901, against Gerhard Terlinden and at the same time garnisheed the First National Bank of Milwaukee. The bank appeared and admitted an indebtedness to Terlinden of $6,420. The defendant in error Umbreit intervened and filed an answer, and later an amended

answer.

A reply was filed, taking issue upon certain allegations of the answer, and a trial was had in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, in which the court found the following facts:

That on the 17th day of August, 1901, the above-named plaintiff, the Disconto Gesellschaft, commenced an action in this court against the above-named defendant, Gerhard Terlinden, for the recovery of damages sustained by the tort of the said defendant, committed in the month of May, 1901; that said defendant appeared in said action by A. C. Umbreit, his attorney, on August 19, 1901, and answered the plaintiff's complaint; that thereafter such proceedings were had in said action that judgment was duly given on February 19, 1904, in favor of said plaintiff, Disconto Gesellschaft, and against said defendant, Terlinden, for $94,145.11 damages and costs; that $85,371.49, with interest from March 26, 1904, is now due and unpaid thereon; that at the time of the commencement of said action, to wit, on August 17, 1901, process in garnishment was served on the above-named garnishee, First National Bank of Milwaukee, as garnishee of the defendant Terlinden.

That on August 9, 1901, and on August 14, 1901, a person giving his name as Theodore Grafe deposited in said First National Bank of Milwaukee the equivalent of German money aggregating $6,420.00 to his credit upon account; that said sum has remained in said bank ever since, and at the date hereof with interest accrued thereon amounted to $6,969.47.

That the defendant Gerhard Terlinden and said Theodore Grafe, mentioned in the finding, are identical and the same person.

That the interpleaded defendant, Augustus C. Umbreit, on March 21, 1904, commenced an action in this court against the defendant Terlinden for recovery

for services rendered between August 16, 1901, and February 1, 1903; that no personal service of the summons therein was had on the said defendant; that said summons was served by publication only and without the mailing of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to said defendant; that said defendant did not appear therein; that on June 11, 1904, judgment was given in said action by default in favor of said Augustus C. Umbreit and against said defendant Terlinden for $7,500 damages, no part whereof has been paid; that at the time of the commencement of said action process of garnishment was served, to wit, on March 22, 1904, on the garnishee, First National Bank of Milwaukee, as garnishee of said defendant Terlinden.

That the defendant Terlinden at all the times set forth in finding number one was and still is a resident of Germany; that about July 11, 1901, he absconded from Germany and came to the State of Wisconsin and assumed the name of Theodore Grafe; that on August 16, 1901, he was apprehended as a fugitive from justice upon extradition proceedings duly instituted against him, and was thereupon extradited to Germany.

That the above-named plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellshaft, at all the time set forth in the findings was, ever since has been and still is a foreign corporation, to wit, of Germany, and during all said time had its principal place of business in Berlin, Germany; that the above-named defendant, Augustus C. Umbreit, during all said times was and still is a resident of the State of Wisconsin.

That on or about the 27th day of July, 1901, proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted in Germany against said defendant Terlinden, and Paul Hecking appointed trustee of his estate in such proceedings on said date; that thereafter, and on or after August 21, 1901, the above-named plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellschaft, was appointed a member of the committee of creditors of the defendant Terlinden's personal estate, and accepted such appointment; and that the above-named plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellschaft, presented its claim to said trustee in said bankruptcy proceedings; that said claim had not been allowed by said trustee in January, 1902, and there is no evidence that it has since been allowed; that nothing has been paid upon said claim; that said claim so presented and submitted is the same claim upon which action was brought by the plaintiff in this court and judgment given, as set forth in finding No. 1; that said action was instituted by said plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellschaft, through the German consul in Chicago; and that the steps so taken by the plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellschaft, had the consent and approval of Dr. Paul Hecking as trustee in bankruptcy, so appointed in the bankruptcy proceedings In Germany, and that after the commencement of the same the plaintiff, The Disconto Gesellschaft, agreed with said trustee that the moneys it should recover in said action should form part of the said estate in bankruptcy and be handed over to said trustee; that, among other provisions, the German bankrupt act contained the following: "Sec. 14. Pending the bankruptcy proceedings, neither the assets nor any other property of the bankrupt are subject to attachment or execution in favor of individual creditors."

Upon the facts thus found the Circuit Court rendered a judgment giving priority to the levy of the Disconto Gesellschaft for the satisfac

tion of its judgment out of the fund attached in the hands of the bank. Umbreit then appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. That court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, and directed judgment in favor of Umbreit, that he recover the sum garnisheed in the bank. 127 Wis. 651. Thereafter a remittitur was filed in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County and a final judgment rendered in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse that judgment. At the same time a decree in an equity suit, involving a fund in another bank, was reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court. This case had been heard, by consent, with the attachment suit. With it we are not concerned in this proceeding.

No allegation of Federal rights appeared in the case until the application for rehearing. In this application it was alleged that the effect of the proceedings in the State court was to deprive the plaintiff in error of its property without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, and to deprive it of certain rights and privileges guaranteed to it by treaty between the Kingdom of Prussia and the United States. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in passing upon the petition for rehearing and denying the same, dealt only with the alleged invasion of treaty rights, overruling the contention of the plaintiff in error. 127 Wis. 676. It is well settled in this court that it is too late to raise Federal questions reviewable here by motions for rehearing in the State court. Penn. v. St. Louis, 165 U. S. 273; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U. S. 192; McMillen v. Ferrum Mining Company, 197 U. S. 343, 347; French v. Taylor, 199 U. S. 274, 278. An exception to this rule is found in cases where the Supreme Court of the State entertains the motion and expressly passes upon the Federal question. Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589; Leigh v. Green, 193 U. S. 79.

Conceding that this record sufficiently shows that the Supreme Court heard and passed upon the Federal questions made upon the motion for rehearing, we will proceed briefly to consider them.

The suit brought by the Disconto Gesellschaft in attachment had for its object to subject the fund in the bank in Milwaukee to the payment of its claim against Terlinden. The plaintiff was a German corporation. and Terlinden was a German subject. Umbreit, the intervenor, was a citizen and resident of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin adjudged that the fund attached could not be subjected to the payment of the indebtedness due the foreign corporation as against the claim asserted to the fund by one of its own citizens, although that claim arose