Obrázky stránek

independent fiscally, legislatively, executively, judicially, and diplomatically. One sees at once that these points are diametrically opposed to the views of Mr. Keith.

The truth lies we think, as usual, in the middle between the two extremes, though we cannot doubt that Mr. Ewart comes very near to the true situation. There still exist, however, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Ewart, a few legal and theoretical bonds, as, for example, in the "Judicial" and the "Diplomatic" independence of the Dominion; Canada can exercise her free will in both these matters, we admit, but this is only practically so; theoretically the old bonds still exist.

In Paper 2 Mr. Ewart gives a brilliant review of “Imperialism,” its theories and political purpose and at the end sums up by giving the reader a clear picture of the modern Canadian national ideals versus the ideals of British Imperialism. He rightly thinks that "national depreciation is mischievous and injurious" and tries to find remedies against such a possible evil in a nationalistic upheaval. No one can deny that there exists at the present day an enormous growth of nationalistic feeling in Canada and that it is of the greatest importance for Canada's future.

Paper 4 reviews the achievements of the Colonial Conferences; the reader will not find any new facts in this pamphlet. In Paper 5 we have some very good criticism of the theories of “Some Imperialists.” This paper is a very suggestive one to students of English public law.

Paper 6 is devoted to the question of a Canadian Navy. Mr. Ewart's views, though very interesting, are not convincing. He does not prove his case at all.

Paper 7 is of more importance for the student, as it gives a resumé of of the author's ideal from the point of view of constitutional law; he thinks that the relations of Canada and England nowadays can be constructed only on the basis of the theory known as “Personal Union." This certainly cannot be accepted as the bonds between the two countries (or “States'') amount to much more than a “Personal Union” and will remain so probably for at least our generation. In this case we see clearly the strong negative or critical point of Mr. Ewart's writings. As to the constructive part he has not yet succeeded in giving a satisfactory solution; this we think however is by no means his fault. It lies in the nature of the case. The British Empire is passing through a severe crisis; all her old idols have to be done away with. The old forms of union between the Mother-country and her

colonies are rapidly dying away (which entre autre Mr. Ewart's writings helps very much to prove), but we doubt sincerely if the time has come to make a new theory to fit the new union; the union is still in building. In other words, the time has not yet come for a general theory of public law, concerned with the future structure of the Empire. Why apply to Canada the theory of Personal Union, a theory which even in Germany, the land par excellence of theoretical study, is looked upon as a transitory status, as something inevitably leading either to disruption, or to some new form of closer union? Besides, even Mr. Ewart himself does not seem to want to apply it in extenso, making the union of Canada and England only a dynastic question.

In Paper 8 the author gives a clear review of the chree most important points of contention, the questions of merchant shipping, naturalization and copyright, stating as definitely as possible the colonial versus the imperialistic point of view. On p. 234, for example, the reader will find some very good arguments against the theories of Mr. Keith concerning the territorial limitations of the colonial legislative power which one must accept in full.

Strangely enough the author does not mention in the third paragraph, relating to copyright, the latest conference, which dealt with the matter and scored some very important points in the subject.

Paper 9 is devoted to the "revision of war relations," constructed on the principle “no obligation without representation." Here the reader can find a clear statement as to Canada's position in case of a British war. One can hardly state the matter more definitely. We will only note that Mr. Ewart is not the first one to come forward with this theory: the same views are held by no less an authority than the ex-Premier Sir W. Laurier and must be seriously considered as a very widespread colonial opinion. Australia does not lag far behind in this respect. Such a theory is far more radical than the theory of “Californian independence,"mentioned by Mr. Keith and cited above. Finally Paper 10 deals with the question of Canada's participation in foreign affairs; the views of the author on this subject are hardly acceptable, but interesting. These ten papers constitute the first Volume.

In conclusion we might say that the student of public law will find in the Kingdom Papers an able statement of the colonial nationalistic point of view, coming very near to absolute independence. It is the exact counterpart of the imperialistic ideals, still put forward by some in the hope of a closer union.

These two authors give the reader opposite extremes of the question. The true solution we believe will be found in the golden mean. University of Finland, Helsingfors


Corporations and the State. By THEODORE E. BURTON. (New

York: D. Appleton and Company, 1911. Pp. xvi, 248.)

This volume contains the author's lectures at the University of Pennsylvania in 1910 on the George Lieb Harrison Foundation, together with a chapter on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Standard Oil and American Tobacco Trust cases. The appendices contain extracts from Chief Justice White's opinion in the above cases, Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Aldrich plan for Monetary Legislation.

The bulk of the work is devoted to a discussion of the origin, growth, and functions of the corporation, its importance under modern conditions and its intimate relation to the state and the public welfare. In the sixth chapter the writer passes judgment upon various plans for the control of corporations. His general attitude is well illustrated by the following language: “Thus far public regulation has given undue attention to the prevention of agreements in restraint of trade, which limit competition or production, while neglecting to provide adequate means for the punishment of palpably dishonest and illegal practices, such as the misappropriation of assets by corporate officers, the issue of fraudulent or watered stock, the declaration of unearned dividends, and the adoption of oppressive and unfair methods to destroy competition.” (p. 128). While admitting that competition between natural monopolies is harmful, the writer urges that certain forms of competition between other corporations is still essential. The control of prices of manufactured goods is declared to be impracticable, the cost being governed by continually fluctuating factors. Criminal punishment for officers of offending corporations is urged, while full publicity is declared to be the most effective force in the control of corporations. This will be best secured through a voluntary, national incorporation act.

The fourth chapter is concerned wholly with banking corporations and the discussion of our monetary system. In the chapter on the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust decisions, the writer supports the position of the court and reconciles its decision with the Trans-Missouri

Freight case, which has caused such popular confusion. This position is not made as clear as its importance deserves. In the TransMissouri case, the question was as to the legality of an agreement to fix rates. The "rule of reason" there urged upon the court, and properly rejected by them, was that the rates so fixed were reasonable and therefore the agreement was valid. But at the common law any agreement of fix rates, however reasonable the rate, was void, and therefore in holding the agreement to be void, the court affirmed the rule of the common law, although its language was certainly ambiguous and misleading. Exactly the same result was reached in the later cases. The "rule of reason" there adopted was to the effect that motive and intent were among the determining factors in interpreting the phrase "restraint of trade," a proposition amply justified by the established usages of the common law. In other words both cases construed "restraint of trade” in accordance with its common law usage and are in accord. The only conflict is in the dicta of the decisions and is due to the ambiguous use of the phrases “rule of reason” and "restraint of trade.” The author argues very convincingly that the decisions instead of emasculating the law, have made it more workable and its meaning more definite.

On the whole the volume contains a timely discussion of the question, not ignoring its historical aspects, and embodying some of the best thought upon the subject.


Problems in Railway Regulation. By HENRY S. HAINES.

(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911. Pp.582)

Of the writers upon railroads but few have in combination the qualifications given by administrative experience and philosophic grasp. Among the foremost of these is General Haines, who was vice-president and general manager of a prominent southern railway system; Commissioner Southern States Freight Association; President, American Railway Association, and who, during the well-earned leisure of recent years, has lectured before students on transportation in eastern universities. The present volume is the fourth from his pen to treat of railway questions of current and general interest. It contains a comprehensive survey of the conditions that attended the introduction of railways, the reckless encouragement to their construction, their rapid extension after the Civil War, the reconstruction succeeding the

panic of 1873 and the developments leading to the present period of regulation which he summarizes. Then follows a description of various problems of incorporation, finance, construction, operation, traffic, discrimination, rate-making, capital and labor. He presents succinctly the difficulties that have arisen from the granting of charters by respective states to railways whose lines crossed state boundaries, deprecates enforced reduction of rates in order to diminish profits, points out the obstacles in the way of ascertaining the so-called physical valuation, insists that the deeply buried corruption of the past should not be disinterred, but that the blotting out of past evils must not be made the precedent for condonation of wrong doing in the future. He commends the Japanese practice of dividing a charter into three successive stages, preparatory, constructive and operative, emphazises the need for doing away with crossings at grades and the punishment of trespassers, predicts that the electrification of the railways will extend and that their requirements for additional capital will amount in the immediate future to about $1,400,000,000 per annum. There is an extended discussion of accidents and of logical procedure toward their prevention, and of methods for the better utilization of equipment.

Attention is called to "the most serious fact which confronts the railroad managements of this country is the continual reduction in the margin between the charge for transportations and the cost of performing the service.” And it is urged that "the railroad corporations should be permitted to group themselves into traffic associations in accordance with the relations that they severally bear to certain classes of competitive traffic"'; that these associations "should have the sole power to change the rates on such traffic, as circumstances warranted in the opinion of their members" but not "without a hearing from the interests to be affected by them," and that appea! should lie in the Interstate Commerce Commission.

General Haines points out the difference between the status of the railway employees in this and in the countries of Europe, where the relation is that of a sovereignty to its subjects and appeals for the aid of the brotherhoods of this country for the enforcement of discipline, it often being that some catastrophe is caused by the negligence of an employee who, “escapes the odium which is heaped upon the corporation by public opinion.”

While General Haines believes in the principle of governmental

« PředchozíPokračovat »