Review of Periodicals fifth of the divorces ought to invigorate the temperance movement." See Conflict of Laws. Medical Jurisprudence. "The Present Law of Procedure in Medico-Legal Cases in which Insanity is an Element." By A. R. Urquhart, M.D., F.R.C.P.E. 21 Juridical Review 43 (Apr.). One of the notable contributions to the periodical literature of the past month. "It is an admission that the boundary line between sanity and insanity is vague, and indefinable to a nicety. I believe that it is increasingly difficult to induce a jury to find a criminal guilty if the result is to be a sen tence of death. It would appear to be appro priate in such cases to mitigate the punish ment, but to maintain the deterrent effect in the interests of the community. . . . "'Insanity in a prisoner, if manifest and unquestionable, puts a stop to all criminal proceedings against him at whatever stage.' To that practice I adhere, whether as a citizen or as an expert, and therefore support the reasoning and conclusions of the Lord JusticeGeneral. I repeat that insanity is an impair ment, a degradation, a weaking of the mind; and therefore while it persists even-handed justice demands a stay of proceedings. "Finally, I repeat my conviction in the words of the eminent judge [the Lord JusticeGeneral of Scotland] already quoted at length —'that scientific opinion on insanity has greatly altered in recent years, and Courts of Law have altered their definitions and rules along with the experts.' That these altera tions cannot be regarded as final, until the master science of the art of healing, with all the subsidiary sciences, are complete, must be admitted by those who regard law as the reflex of educated and enlightened opinion." Monopolies (Sherman Act). "Federal AntiTrust Legislation and President Taft's Pro posed Amendments." By Lynden Evans. 4 Illinois Law Review 1 (May). "The purpose of this paper is to urge dis cussion by the members of the bar of the necessary amendments to the Sherman Law, and to this end, in conclusion, I suggest that the amendments to be adopted should, while following the lines of Judge Taft's remark able address, define a monopoly, let us say any act of a corporation, person or persons that materially interferes with the usual out put of, or price of, any commodity or labor used in interstate commerce or employed therein. It should define, within rational limits, the terms 'partial', 'consideration' and 'reasonable' as applied to such monopolies, and for this purpose the numerous decisions of all English-speaking courts should be ex amined that the extravagances of some of these decisions may be avoided, or as little as possible left to the economic eccentricities of judges; it should provide for publicity of all persons or corporations who wish to avail themselves of the provisions of such a statute,
291
with a proper commission under some of the Departments at Washington and an appeal therefrom to the courts; it should impose (and here is the really new departure, for almost all the cases refer only to private grievances) a duty upon the Department of Justice to enforce the provisions of the Act in all cases of public injury resulting from abnormally stimulated prices of either pro ducts or labor, and make proper provision for a preliminary investigation by such De partment. It should provide that injuries peculiar to persons or corporations should be recovered according to the usual measure of damages with all costs of litigation, rather than to seek to accomplish its purpose by ineffectual attempts to frighten by dreadsounding penalties; it should 'make the pun ishment fit the crime' by a graduated system of fines and make the directors of a corpora tion personally liable in cases where the law would charge such directors with knowledge of an infringement of such law. Of one thing we may, I believe, be assured, that the in coming administration, with the brilliant legal minds whom we understand are to be mem bers of the cabinet, will give this subject profound investigation and study before it undertakes the difficult task of framing a law." With refreshing directness and perspicacity Mr. Victor Morawetz, whose illuminating study of the currency problem has added to his reputation, takes a view of the Sherman Act sharply contrasted with that of Mr. Thomas Thacher in the April North American Review and to that of the present Adminis tration:— "Should the Anti -Trust Act be Amended?" By Victor Morawetz. 22 Harvard Law Re view 492 (May). The cases arising under the Sherman Act may be classified under four heads as fol lows :— First. Cases involving contracts, combina tions, or conspiracies, by force, or by threats of damage to the property, business, or per sons of others, to restrain trade or commerce of the public, or of others than those con tracting, combining, or conspiring. Combinations of this class can never be reasonable or just, says Mr. Morawetz, and should be prohibited by an act of Congress as broad as the common law, which declares them illegal, therefore the absolute prohibi tion of the Sherman Act in this regard should not be qualified. Second. Cases involving contracts or com binations among railway companies to in crease or to prevent a reduction of the rates or charges to be paid by the public engaging in interstate trade or commerce upon the railways. In the opinion of this writer, an exemption from the operation of the act would be of little advantage to the railway companies. Contracts and combinations of this class were probably illegal before the act was passed; they are prohibited by the laws of many of
