restrictions on the person, on immovable prop- The discussion showed the strong tendency erty and on movable property. among continental jurists to give even greater importance to the national law as regards all questions of personal status. M. Rolin-Jacquemyns pointed out that a distinction should be made between the case of a person dangerous to society and mere spendthrifts. The former must necessarily be considered as of public order. He was otherwise in favor of the "tutelle unique." appre Professor Lammasch expressed his hensions as to the law of one State having force in another, and suggested that, as regards immovables, a distinction was indispensable. M. Clunet explained that there was no danger to the foreignor of suffering a minutio capitis -i. e., a diminution of his legal capacity-inasmuch as the project provided for the application of his national law, and it was only in case no application was made to the court on behalf of his national law that the local law would become applicable. This, however, it was important to insure, and on his proposition a further article was adopted, under which the administration of the property of the person in question would be governed by the law of the court imposing the restraint. The main consideration in the project was to attain, if possible, unity of administration of the property of pesons of full age deprived of the management of their affairs. Lord Reay fully accepted the principle that the science of international law could not be stopped in its progress because nations were not prepared to accept some principles on which scientific men were agreed; but where not only was there no such agreement, and in addition almost a certainty that hardly any legislature would be prepared to accept the principle, and still less its extreme consequences, it behooved the institute to proceed with caution. This was a case in point. To say that a person should have the benefit of his personal status in a foreign country was one thing; to say that the foreign country was to provide him with all the means of protection which he would have in his own country, and to apply this even to real property, was far in excess of what most Legislatures or judicatures were prepared for, and had not even been accepted by some of the foremost international lawyers. After a discusion in which many other members took part, the whole project was adopted. Sir Sherston Baker and M. Beirao (formerly Minister of Justice in Portugal), members of the institute, have been present at the meetings, in addition to those already mentioned. The meeting of the institute at Cambridge on August 13, was devoted to considering the immunities of diplomatic missions on the territory of the States to which they are accredited. Embassies and legations, as is well known, are by a legal fiction considered to be, as it were, a portion of the territory of the State to which they belong. Hence the term "exterritoriality." Moreover, by the comity of nations, diplomatic representatives in the reciprocal interest of States are treated as privileged perAccording to some writers the present practice goes beyond the limits which are justified in reason. Others treat exterritorial pre sons. cincts, not merely as convenient fiction which should not be extended beyond the limits of practical necessity, but as having the character of detached parts of the country represented in every respect. Furthermore, writers are not agreed as to which persons belonging to the diplomatic personnel should have the benefit of the privileges and immunities in question. All these matters formed part of a full report and project of regulations framed by the committee in charge of the question under the convenership of M. Lehr. M. Edouard Rolin made a warm attack on the use of the word "exterritoriality." It was invented, he contended, to group in one exIt no longer pression a number of rights. represented the real nature of the immunities of diplomatic representatives and their suite. To retain it opened the door to exaggerated notions of diplomatic privileges. The institute, however, determined to retain it as a convenient and time-honored term which it would be inconvenient in the absence of a better to replace. As regards the jurisdiction to which diplomatic representatives are subjects, it was decided in accordance with existing practice that they should be exempt from all jurisdiction, civil or criminal, of the State to which they are accredited. A representa . tive would, therefore, have to be sued in his Professor de Martens proposed that a court Professor Westlake pointed out that this could not be applied in certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, where different judicial systems existed in different parts of it. men was one to detach a clause relating to the application of death duties in respect of diplomatic representatives from the subject under discussion, and to appoint a special committee to deal with death duties in general as a question involving injustice and inequality for international successions. This subject was brought before the meeting of the associated chambers last spring as regards France and England, and it is satisfactory to see that it interests jurists of other foreign States. Two ex On August 14 the Institute of International Law closed its session for this year. subjects on which much discussion was pected—namely, contraband of war and nationality - were dealt with very fully in committee, every available hour that could be snatched from the plenary meetings having been devoted to them, but little beyond this was done. The committee on con chief point in which is the generalizing of the criterion of destination. The conveners, Councillor Kleen (Sweden) and Professor Brusa (Italy), had proposed the adoption of exclusive lists of contraband and non-contraband arti cles. A counter-proposal by Director Perels, of the German Admiralty, struck out fixed enumeration and retained the principle of what is called "accidental contraband." This was defined and regulated without, of course, affecting its essential feature of destination. The whole subject will be discussed in plenary meeting at Venice next year. Professor Van Bar agreed with him, and suggested that the defendant should be entitled to claim the jurisdiction of his domicile. According to the article adopted, the plain-traband of war submitted a series of rules, the tiff should be entitled to apply to the court of the capital, but the plaintiff should also be able to contest the latter's jurisdiction, on the ground of being domiciled elsewhere. Another point which gave rise to difference of opinion was the non-liability of diplomatic representatives to taxation. Some members were in favor of restricting the immunity of such representatives to the official personnel of the diplomatic mission. An English member proposed that persons belonging to the country represented, and residing in the ex-territorial precincts, should be included in the immunities; but this was negatived, and it was decided that the imThe nationality question made rather greater munity should not be extended beyond the offiprogress. Double nationalities are a source of cial personnel. An interesting debate took infinite trouble in countries where there is place on the subject of obtaining the evidence compulsory military service, and to none is the of persons enjoying the immunities. It was hardship greater than, for instance, to Englishdecided, in spite of Professor Rolland, who ob- men who happen to have been born in France jected to their having to give their testimony and whose children, if born there, are French even in the ex-territorial precincts, that they absolutely, and therefore excluded from French were entitled to refuse to appear as witnesses soil unless they do military service in that counbefore any local jurisdiction, on condition, if try, though Frenchmen born under similar requested, of giving their evidence in the hotel conditions in England have to do no military of the diplomatic mission to a magistrate spec- service in England. The committee on the ially delegated by the local authority. The general subject, under the convenership of Professor impression produced by the discussion was that Weiss, of Paris, having considered itself bound continental jurists show a tendency to restrict to deal with a few aspects of the subject only, the ex-territorial rights and privileges and im- a fuller counter-project by an English member munities of diplomatic agents of all kinds. A meeting with some opposition as to the rules decision which will particularly interest English-proposed on the points omitted, confined itself to enumerating the points upon which agreement was unanimous, and these, which were also adopted unanimously by the plenary meeting, were essentially as follows: ( (1) No one should be without a nationality; (2) no one should have two nationalities; (3) every one should be able to change his nationality; (4) to change nationality a simple declaration should not suffice; (5) the nationality of origin should not be indefinitely transmissible from generation to generation on foreign soil. Professor Holland, on behalf of himself and Sir Travers Twiss, stated that a standing subcommittee on extra-territorial jurisdiction and mixed cases in Japan could now be suppressed. The treaty of July 16, 1894, between Great Britain and Japan had fixed a period of five years for extinction of the privilege of extraterritoriality. The British example had now been followed by the United States and Italy, and would, no doubt, be in turn followed by other Western Powers. Professor Holland congratulated the Japanese on having been admitted to the European concert as regards the administration of justice at a moment when they were about to take a high place among the military Powers of the world. Perhaps the most important work which must be performed by Messrs Lincoln, Johnson and Northrup, who have among other duties the revision of the statutes and advising the governor about legislation and pardons, is to prepare a Code of Civil Procedure which will be approved by the lawyers and legislators. Among other suggestions which have been made in answer to the request of the commissioners is one from Joseph C. Rosenbaum, Esq., of New York city, who writes thus: "Section 418 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be modified by substituting six instead of twenty days, the time in which to plead or appear in an action. Twenty days has always been the time that a defendant had to appear or plead, and seems to have been the result of the then existing facilities for communications between attorneys in different counties. of this State, while now any part of the State can be reached in twelve hours. There is no good reason why a defendant should have twenty days to appear in an action or to serve a pleading. To litigation this is a great and often an unfortunate delay, considering the time it really takes before a case is ready for the trial calendar, and is often the cause of injustice to a plaintiff in an action. For instance, a summons has been served on a defendant outside of the city of New York; within twenty days the defendant appears in the action; then the attorney for the plaintiff serves a complaint on the defendant's attorney; if such service is made personally on the attorney, then the defendant has twenty days from the date of such service in which to answer; but, as often happens, if the service is made by mail, the defendant has double time, forty days to answer, and has the same time, subsequently, to amend his pleading. "In such cases the defendant actually has sixty days from the time of the service of the complaint; and if the complaint has been served on the attorney by mail, and the answer served by mail, the defendant has one hundred days before issues can actually be joined and The result of such the cause noticed for trial. long lapse in a litigation is decidedly disadvantageous to the plaintiff, because it affords the defendant abundant opportunity for delaying the payment of what may possibly be a just claim by the interposition of an answer which may be false. "It is true the Code provides that false pleadings may be stricken out and the service of such answers punished as a contempt of court, but cases in which such relief is given and punishment meted out to litigants are so exceedingly rare that it can reasonably be said that it is no remedy at all. "Another reason why such long time for joining issue is injurious to the plaintiff and his cause is that in the meantime the defendant may dispose of all his property, even before the case can be placed on the calendar, to say nothing of the time which must elapse before a judgment is rendered. "The twenty days' time still in use seems to be without change or modification, although the mode and facility of communication has "The delay being so sure that not alone the greatly improved since then. It generally took plaintiff becomes tired of litigation a long time three or four days between the extreme points I before it has actually begun, but it offers a real There is no reason why a defendant cannot plead in six days, no matter what part of the State the defendant resides or appears from. A person who knows that his litigation will be promptly and quickly disposed of is more apt to press honest claims (too often allowed to drop), and if a defendant knows that judgment must be recovered against him within a short time, and cannot rely on the time consumed in pleading, the probability is that the claim will be liquidated or paid. If such a change is made the number of litigations would be greatly decreased, and our courts could keep up with the volume of litigation that increases every year. The Code of Civil Procedure should be further amended by doing away with the notice of trial. It certainly has not the effect of bringing cases to trial. A plaintiff may bring an action and never place it on the calendar, and never intend to try it, yet if defendant receives a notice of trial he will assume that plaintiff intends to try the action when reached, and prepares accordingly. A much better practice would be a notice on the part of plaintiff or defendant that the case has been placed on the calendar, giving the number of the same, and could be placed on the calendar at any time, and date from the filing of the note of issue instead of the succeeding first Monday. If such a motion is made by defendant the Court, as a general rule, allows the plaintiff to file a note of issue upon the payment of nominal costs, and, of course, another year and a half must elapse before the case can be The result of such reached on the calendar. practice is easily seen in a case where plaintiff replevins a quantity of property, giving the undertaking required by the present Code of Civil Procedure and taking the property into his possession. The defendant appears in the action, and the issue is joined, and there the plaintiff rests. Plaintiff, having the property in his possession, has all to lose and nothing to gain by the continuance of the litigation. Of course, the plaintiff never notices the case for trial or files his note of issue. In the course of about a year and a half, after younger issues have been reached on the general calendar and disposed of, a motion is made by defendant to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. This motion is usually granted unless plaintiff pays nominal costs and files a note of issue, and then about another year and a half elapses before the case is reached for trial. If "If the notice of trial was abolished and a notice of placing on the calendar substituted plaintiff could be made to place his case on the calendar within a given time, say a month. the case was not placed on the calendar within such fixed time the defendant could move to dismiss the complaint for the non-filing of the note of issue, and then on such motion the court could compel plaintiff to file a note of issue or suffer a dismissal. Instead of losing a year and a half's time only one month's time would be lost. "It has become the plaintiff's general practice in replevin actions to simply take the property and allow the defendant to worry about its return or its value. The time for pleading in the city court should be reduced from six days to two days, which time is ample for an attorney to serve a pleading in the city, and if for a good reason it is impossible to serve it within that time, the court has power to grant a reasonable extension of the time so to do. The same applies to the Supreme Court. "Section 553 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be stricken out. That section pro vides that a woman cannot be arrested, excepting in a case where an order can be granted only by the court, or where it appears that the action is to recover damages for a wilful injury to person, character or property. In that same connection section 1488 of the Code of Civil Procedure should also be stricken out. That section provides that an execution cannot be issued against the person of a woman unless an order of arrest had been granted and executed in the action. The above two sections should be abolished. While, theoretically all persons, male and female, were equal, that theory has developed into an actual condition (at least the women think so), and there is no reason, if such is the case, why any discrimination should be made in favor of women. They should be subject to all the liabilities and entitled to all the privileges same as males. They claim to be on the same footing as man, and they should be consistent enough to resent any partiality or discrimination in their favor. "Section 3221 of the code, which allows an execution against the person of a defendant, and keeps him actually confined in jail for a period of fifteen days, in an action where a woman recovers a judgment against him for $50, or less, for services rendered, should be abolished. To the same effect is section 3131, excepting that 3131 applies to Justices' Courts throughout the State, while 3221 applies to District Courts in this city. Both of said sections should either be entirely abolished, or should be made in favor of both men and such sections of the code are unconstitutionali "It has been suggested by some lawyers, that the District Court Justices should sit in different districts at least every week. The District Courts, more than any other courts, reach the populace; before them appear the bulk of the people, and it is in their power to do good or evil. "If the Justices of the various District Courts intend to do their duty as such, there can be no objection to the suggested change. "While I am on the subject of reforms, I would suggest that a woman's dower in a husband's real estate only attach at the death of her husband, instead of the absolute dower right in her husband's real estate as soon as he acquires it. Although such rights have existed from or before the time of the Magna Charta, the object for which such right was given does not present itself in our advanced condition. At the time this dower right was created a married woman was considered of the same "As the law stands at the present time a class as infants, lunatics, drunkards, &c., and, woman who recovers judgment in an action for as such incompetents, presumed to be incapaservices performed by her, whether for seam- ble of entering into a contract. When she stress, maid, physician or lawyer, is entitled to married all her goods and chattels became her an execution against the person, provided the husband's property, and she became an absojudgment is for $50 or less; such right is lute dependent on her better or worse half. If denied to a man, and that right is denied to a she committed a wrong her husband was jointly possibly poorer woman who recovers a judg-liable with her, and her very existence thement for $51. women. 'Irrespective of whether a woman ought to be paid in preference to a man, or whether they should be entitled to more legal rights than man, these sections have become the foundation for a great deal of abuse on the part of those entitled to its benefit. oretically merged into his. "For her protection the law gave her an absolute interest in her husband's lands. day no such state of affairs exist. A woman, although married, may do as much business as her capital or ability will permit. If she holds real estate she can dispose of it as suits her "I believe, and have always contended, that fancy or convenience, and her husband, as far |