Suchergebnisse

It is a truism that the science of law proper – the science dealing with the United States or the law of Great Britain, one finds the whole science based on the fact of the existence of a political society known as the United States or Great Britain, which formulates, applies and enforces the law which governs these nations in their internal relations. When one enters upon the study of what is called international law, one finds himself expected to accept as a fundamental proposition that there is no political society which formulates, applies and enforces the law which he is told governs all nations in their external relations, and that this law is formulated, applied and enforced among or between the nations. This difference in fundamentals leads to corresponding differences in the derivative notions. Practitioners of law proper take little or no interest in what is called international law. From their point of view, that which is called international law is only a collection of the rules of a highly interesting game, success in which depends largely upon "face " and personality; nor can it be denied that there is much to justify this opinion. Students of law reflect the attitude of mind of the practitioner, and the great majority of students end their legal education when they finish the courses in national domestic law, giving no consideration to the law which governs the actions and relations of the nations.

For several years the plan of publishing an annual index or summary of foreign legislation has been under discussion among American students of political science. The Librarian of Congress has recommended that such a publication be undertaken by the United States Government, and it seems possible that his efforts in this direction may finally be successful. Information concerning foreign legislation is now difficult to obtain, and the usefulness of a publication that would make more easily available the substance of current foreign laws is well recognized.The demand for information of foreign legislation may be said to come from three sources: (1) From practicing lawyers who handle cases involving the laws of other countries. The increasing American investments abroad and the closer social relations which have developed between the United States and foreign countries make it necessary that our lawyers should know something of the legal institutions of other nations. In our great seaboard cities lawyers have already begun to devote themselves to foreign law as a specialty, and important legal firms find it necessary to have foreign connections. (2) Our legislators are beginning to look more closely into the experiences of other countries. Statesmen are coming to see that one country may well prove a laboratory for others in the field of social legislation, and to wish to profit by foreign successes and to avoid foreign failures. Germany has gone very far in the matter of governmental insurance and in legislation for the protection of labor, and it is within these fields that we may expect future legislation in the United States.

Unique among the governing bodies of the world today, controlling in large measure about thirty-one thousand square kilometers of the former German Empire with a population exceeding six million inhabitants, the Interallied Rhineland High Commission, the supreme representative of the Allied and Associated Powers within the occupied territory, presents to the student of administrative law much that is enlightening, interesting and valuable. In this branch of jurisprudence, so highly developed among continental European nations, America has not specialized to any marked degree, and indeed the same may be said of Great Britain. The High Commission— referred to hereinafter for the sake of brevity as the Commission— is the antithesis of the legal doctrine enunciated by Montesquieu and so readily accepted by the framers of our own Constitution: the triune distribution of power, the separation of governmental authority into executive, legislative and judicial departments, each distinct and independent of the others, yet all so correlated as to make one consistent, harmonious and logical system of government. The Commission itself exercises executive, legislative and judicial authority, and not infrequently issues its administrative mandates, enacts important and far-reaching ordinances, and reviews, as would an appellate court, the action of a German civil or criminal court at one and the same sitting. And it must be said with entire frankness that it does all these things well. Perhaps its limited personnel—men, however, of exceeding high mental and statesmanlike qualities—is responsible for much of its success. Be that as it may, the excellence of its administration is another proof that the " form" of a government is not the thing which counts, but the results of that government's action.