erty and on movable property. restrictions on the person, on immovable prop- The discussion showed the strong tendency 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." Professor Lammasch expressed his apprehensions as to the law of one State having force in another, and suggested that, as regards immovables, a distinction was indispensabile 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. M. Clunet explained that there was no d'an- Embassies and legations, as is well known, are ger to the foreignor of suffering a minutio capitis by a legal fiction considered to be, as it were, a —i. e., a diminution of his legal capacity-in-portion of the territory of the State to which asmuch 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 be come applicable. This, however, it was important to insure, and on his proposition a further article was adopted, under which the ad ministration 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 After a discusion in which many other members took part, the whole project was adopted. they belong. Hence the term "exterritori- Furthermore writers are not belonging to the agreed as to which persons w diplomatic personnel should hate the benefit of the privileges and immunities infe question. All these matters formed part of a tell 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 one ex longer unities suite. rated ain ch The institute, however, determined to ret it as a convenient and time-honored term whe it would be inconvenient in the absence of 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 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 involv tive would, therefore, have to be sued in his own country. A discussion took place as to which court in his country should have jurisdiction, seeing that, being exempt from the local jurisdiction, facilities of jurisdiction should, if possible, be accorded to the aging injustice and inequality for international sucgrieved person in the foreign country into which he was obliged to follow the diplomatic representative. Professor de Martens proposed that a court in the capital of the diplomatic representative's country should be declared competent. 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. cessions. 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 lists of contraband and non-contraband arti- 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 offi- progress. 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 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." Professor Lammasch expressed his apprehensions 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-in asmuch 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. 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 persons. According to some writers the present practice goes beyond the limits which are justified in reason. Others treat exterritorial precincts, 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 Lord Reay fully accepted the principle that the privileges and immunities in question. All 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. 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 expression a number of rights. It no longer 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 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 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 involv tive would, therefore, have to be sued in his own country. A discussion took place as to which court in his country should have jurisdiction, seeing that, being exempt from the local jurisdiction, facilities of jurisdiction should, if possible, be accorded to the ag-ing injustice and inequality for international sucgrieved person in the foreign country into which he was obliged to follow the diplomatic representative. Professor de Martens proposed that a court in the capital of the diplomatic representative's country should be declared competent. 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. cessions. 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 chief point in which is the generalizing of the lists of contraband and non-contraband arti- 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 Professor Van Bar agreed with him, and sugcommittee, every available hour that could be snatched from the plenary meetings gested that the defendant should be entitled to having been devoted to them, but little claim the jurisdiction of his domicile. beyond this was done. The committee on conAccording 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 offi-progress. 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 con gratulated 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: 66 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. "The twenty days' time still in use seems to be without change or modification, although the mode and facility of communication has greatly improved since then. It generally took three or four days between the extreme points 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 cause noticed for trial. The result of such 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 delay being so sure that not alone the plaintiff becomes tired of litigation a long time before it has actually begun, but it offers a real |