none is probably better aware than the For eign Office at St. Petersburg. It is evident, then, that some other method must be adopted in order to bring the Russian Gov ernment to our point of view, even than the argument based upon the assumed rights of American Jews under the existing treaty; and that, if treaties are to be made with for
eign Powers which shall stand any legitimate strain that may be put upon them, we must so change the requirements of our diplo matic system, in conformity with the best European models, that, by training and ex perience, our ambassadors and ministers— to say nothing of those of lower rank, and in the consular service—may be second to none.
THE EVOLUTION OF A LEGAL SKY PILOT. BY W. ARCHIBALD MCCLEAN, Of the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Bar. SANTOS DUMONT with his dirigible balloon making a trip around the Eiffel Tower, and back to the starting point has given a new impetus to the air sailing busi ness. It is an expensive experiment or lux ury at present, but with the new impetus and the new century no one is quite willing to commit one's self where it is all going to end. If balloons or air ships are to be the vogue, if the automobile is to be made a back num ber and man is going to fly in dirigible vehicles through the sky, then it is time to see what the law is going to do and say on the subject. Law is so elastic that it can ad just itself to all new conditions and applying old principles make them answer arising needs. If the law knows any uncertainty on the matter Legislatures are called upon and they pile on the remedies and the panaceas until they are often worse then the disease. Without resorting to the law making power, the following is a speculation as to the ways with which the law will greet and treat a balloon or flying era. The first thing a lawyer wants is prece dent. Have the law and authorities ever said anything about a balloon? Very little, one old case and one as late as five years ago make up the entire law that can be found on the subject of balloons. The first one tells of a defendant who as
cended in a balloon near the plaintiff's gar den and came down in the garden. Becom ing entangled and being in a perilous situa tion, he called for help and the crowd who were pursuing the balloon broke into the garden, trod down the vegetables therein growing and extricated the defendant from his position. The owner of the garden sued the aeronaut in trespass for damages done his garden and inclosure by the defendant and the crowd rescuing him, amounting to ninetv dollars. The court said the counsel for the de fendant erred in supposing that the injury committed by his client was involuntary and that done by the crowd was voluntan- and that, therefore, there was no union of intent. The intent with which an act is done is by no means the test of the liability of a party to an action of trespass. If the act causes the im mediate injury whether it was intentional or unintentional, trespass is the proper action to redress the wrong. Where an immediate act is done by the cooperation or the joint act of several persons, they are all trespassers, and may be sued jointly and severally, and any one of them is liable for the injury done by all. To render one man liable in trespass for the acts of others it must appear either that they acted in concert, or that the act of the individual sought to be charged, ordin
i
