War, which was introduced to English stu dents by Professors Holland and Westlake. The book formed a companion to the work published in Paris with the title La Guerre Sino-Japonaisc an Point de Vue de Droit Inter national, by Professor Ariga, who was with the land forces in the same campaign. Pro fessors Ariga and Takahashi took a leading part in the formation of the International Law Association, which was founded in To kio in March, 1897. It works upon the same lines as older branches of the Institut de Droit International. It will be recognized, therefore, that the study of international law has been undertaken with that thoroughness which has characterized the accession of Japan to a place among the leading nations of the world. In the course of the war sev eral points have arisen which are to be dealt with by The Hague Court of Arbitration. Before that tribunal Japan will be repre sented by the well-known jurisconsult, Pro fessor Deschamps, who took an important part in the deliberations of the Conference as one of the representatives of Belgium. WE confess (says the Canada Law Journal for July) to a good deal of surprise in read ing the recent decision in the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that in the absence of Congressional enactment therefor American citizens in the Philippines have no right to trial by jury in criminal cases. This is contrary to the English doctrine of the transference of the "birthrights of the subject" where new possessions, lacking effect ive legal institutions, are acquired by conquest; and, with submission, we think it incompatible with the theory of the great expounders of the American constitution touching the rights of citizenship. It is certainiy at variance with all Anglo-Saxon traditions. . . . The majority of the court consisted of Fuller, C.J., and Brewer, Peckham and Holmes, JJ. Mr. Justice Harían, however, dissented. In the course of his very able dissenting opinion the latter considers that the judgment of the Supreme Court simply
amounts to "an amendment of the Consti tution by judicial action. . . . Judge Harlan's views commend them selves to our reason. The opinion of the majority of the court in this case if pressed to its logical boundaries would mean that Congress must expressly legislate in behalf of the Filipinos the whole body of rights and remedies comprising the liberty of the subject. Such a conclusion would lead to a juridicial impasse until Congress could be persuaded that this conclusion was a correct one, and found time to enact a Filipino corle with all the necessary infinitude of detail. Again, we ask, if a man may be indicted for a common law offence in the Philippines without Congressional authorization there for, why in the name of common sense should he be denied a fundamental common law method of trial upon such indictment? IN reviewing the recent Turner decision Case and Comment says: The general power of Congress to exclude aliens from the United States, to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they may come in, and to provide for deporting those whose entrance is in violation of law, has been established beyond question by a series of decisions. It seems, therefore, to follow that it rests in the discretion of Congress to determine what classes of persons shall be excluded. As the general power belongs to Congress, it seems clear that any limitation thereon, or any exceptions thereto, must be a matter for Congress, and not for the court, to determine, unless the limitation or exception is based upon some constitutional provision. On what grounds the exclusion of merely philosophic anarchists could be held unconstitutional does not appear. The attempt to take them out of the statute be cause their teachings would not be harmful and their presence would not be dangerous, even if these contentions are conceded, would seem to be an attempt to give the court, in stead of Congress, the right to determine what aliens should or should not be per mitted to enter this countrv. The wisdom
