have, they be informed that it would be the
customs houses, consequently, he, Mr.
Bowen, begged that the blockade be raised
at once.
It was seriously claimed in the proceed
ings before The Hague Tribunal by Vene
zuela and by others of the creditor nations
that the agreement of Venezuela that the
blockade powers should have the customs
houses as a guaranty was void because it
was obtained under duress. This contention
might as well apply to the protocols of Feb
ruary 13, 1903, and even to the submission
to arbitration, because both were entered
into in order to induce the three powers to
raise the blockade. The contention refutes
itself. . .,
Not withstanding the pledge under his
hand on January 9, 1903, Mr. Bowen, as the
Venezuelan representative, at Washington
on January 23, 1903, proposed to Great Bri
tain, Germany and Italy, to the surprise of
their representatives, that all claims against
Venezuela should be paid out of the 30 per
cent, of the customs revenues of La Guayra
and Puerto Cabello. When this proposal
was made, Mr. Bowen considered the assent
of the three powers necessary. Such assent
was not given. However, in the course of
later negotiations on January 25 and 27, Mr.
Bowen (notwithstanding the pledge) stated
definitely that the 30 per cent, were destined
not only for the blockading powers, but for
all the creditor nations. The representatives
of the blockading powers replied that the 30
per cent, could not be accepted as a suffi
cient security unless they were to be em
ployed exclusively for the benefit of the
blockading powers, and protested against
the assignment of the 30 per cent, to all the
creditor powers. As Mr. Bowen adhered to
the position taken by him, the three powers,
in the interests of peace, consented to the
submission of the question to arbitration.
THE Central Law Journal has this to say
concerning "Right of Boarder to Receive
Friends at his Boarding House for Im
moral Purposes or at Unusual Hours:"
Until a man or woman lodges under his
own vine and fig tree, no place where he may happen to abide is secure from intru sion. Further than that, it seems to be the law that a boarder's room may be broken into on suspicion and his friends or visitors be held liable as trespassers, depending1 upon the moral or immoral purpose of their visit. This latter rule of law was forcibly illustrated by the recent case of Watson v. Dilts, loo N. W. Rep 50, where the Supreme Court of Iowa held that where a defendant went to plaintiff's house between 9 and 12 o'clock in the evening for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with a female boarder, and was admitted to the house by her, he was a trespasser. This decision raises several important questions: First: What purposes are so im moral as to change an invited guest of a boarder into a trespasser? Second: In such cases does not the boarder himself become a trespasser, or is he only an accessory be fore the fact? Third: To what length may a landlord go to discover the purpose of any visitors who may happen to call upon any of his boarders? Fourth: What facts are suffi cient to raise a just suspicion in the landlord that the purposes of his guest are immoral or illegal? Fifth: Must à social call on a female boarder in rural communities occur before nine o'clock in the evening to be above suspicion? Sixth: If such is the case, what is the time limit for social calls in a populous metropolis? All these questions, fraught with such tremendous importance, are called forth by the decision of the court, but left, unfortunately, in the most perplex ing uncertainty. ON the "Restriction of Book Sales to One Price," the Xational Corporation Reporter says : The law which has been asserted in Edison Phonograph Company i: Pike, 116 Fed. Rep., 863, and in Victor Talking Machine Company r. The Fair, 118 Fed. Rep., 609. is spreading, and at least one publisher has resorted to the expedient of controlling the price of his publication by printing on the page immediately following the title-page,
