"Not through the mere letter, the bare text of the treaties made at Locarno," declared Sir Robert, "will they prove to be endowed with the great results that we hope for and anticipate. It is the goodwill and the clearer understanding which brought about those treaties, the spirit which inspired them, that are of the greatest possible moment, and if these can endure, a new hope has dawned upon Europe and upon the world.

"What is true of the treaties made at Locarno is equally true of the covenant itself. It is not the letter but the spirit that maketh alive, and perhaps, after all, the higher purpose and the supreme achievement of the League will lie in its gradual and increasing, and eventually supreme, influence upon the spirit of the nations, through. continuous association, intercourse and co-operation at Geneva, and in all the League's activities. There is but one force capable of effectually outlawing war, and that is the awakened conscience of humanity. Without the spirit which brought about notable results at Locarno, covenants, treaties and pacts will be as nothing. But so long as that spirit is a living flame, public right and international faith will be maintained and enthroned whatever be the form of international engagements."

The Honourable H. S. Beland, Minister of Health, in supporting the resolution, said that he did not apprehend that it might be construed by anyone as being any direction imposed upon the Government of Canada. As a member of the Government, he felt perfectly at liberty, therefore, to support the resolution.

FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS.-During the last General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, an officer of one of its divisions made a "foreign-born survey" of the staff of the Hotel Bienville in New Orleans, and, according to the Living Church, he reported the following interesting facts:

"The hotel and its sister, the Roosevelt, are owned by four Italians, the three Vaccaro brothers, Felix, Joseph, and Luca, and their brother-in-law, Blaiz d'Antoni. (Such ownership proves the oft-repeated contention of the Foreign-born Americans Division, that the foreign-born are becoming rulers economically and politically.') The general manager of the two hotels is a Hebrew, though his name is Mike Moss. The manager of the Bienville is Thomas Burns. The chief cook is a Filipino; the head waiter, a Greek; the head porter, a Belgian; the auditor, a German; the night detective. an Alsatian; the parents of the cigar counter girl, whose name is Effie Lee, were born one in England, and the other in France.

"The elevator girls are French, Spanish, Irish, German, and Slovak. The bell boys are all sorts of nationalities, and one of them is half Indian. Among the waiters are French, Porto Rican, Greek, Assyrian, Filipino, Irish, Italian, Austrian, and Mexican. Only one Hebrew besides the general manager was found in the whole hotel.

"Here are some names taken at random from the time cards: Joseph Mutz, Aymar Holm, Lionel Chatry, Thomas Lynch, George Montier, Arthur Marat, Sotiro Coruellas, Joseph Michalik, John Bringold, Charles Koury, Y. Colorada, S. Camezaw, L. Alvarez, Rico Delgado, Arthur Jones, Albert Williams, Norah Lind, Lilly Collins, Johanna Sweeney, Olive Verrie, and Teresa Naquin, and finally two fine American names of men of old American stock, Paul Davis and John Washington, whose ancestors, some generations ago, migrated from Africa."

With its heterogeneity of peoples at such a pitch as that above indicated, and so many of them alien to the cult of our Lady of the Common Law, the American nation does well to consider, as it is now doing, educational measures for increasing the respect for established legal and political institutions throughout the country.

*

UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD COURT.-On the 27th ultimo, by a vote of 76 for and 17 against, the American Senate adopted a resolution that the United States of America should become a party to the Permanent Court of International Justice. We once felt that we should become lyrical over this event when it happened: but there were features in the Senate debate which, so to say, rubbed the gilt off the gingerbread, and the least said about the details the better. We rest our notice of it with the pregnant remark of a distinguished member of the American Bar that if the United States. did not at least declare adherence to the World Court then it would place itself outside the pale of Twentieth Century Civilization.

MERGER OF CORPORATIONS ATTACKED.-On the thirteenth instant United States Attorney Buckner took proceedings under the Clayton Act to restrain the merger of certain corporations dealing in food supplies. The defendants in the proceedings include the National Food Products Corporation and the following individuals:

Charles E. Crane, president of the National Food Products Corporation; Ernest H. Wands, vice-president: William H. Hall, secretary and treasurer: H. G. Boheck, a director and also presi

dent of the H. G. Boheck Company, founder of the Boheck Chain Stores; C. C. Burdan, director, and president of Burdan Brothers, ice cream manufacturers of Pottstown, Pa.; L. Benedict, director, vice-president of the Worcester Salt Company; D. S. Halsey, director, vice-president of the Sheffield Farms, Inc.; and director of the National Dairy Products Corporation, and J. A. McDermott, director, a vice-president of the United States Dairy Products Corporation.

The food products involved in the plans of the National Food Products Corporation, include groceries and food products sold by chain stores; milk, cream, butter, eggs and other dairy products, and ice cream and other frozen products.

The petition filed alleges that the holding corporation has acquired stock, although not controlling interest, in corporations engaged in the chain store grocery business having combined assets in excess of $80,000,000; milk and dairy companies with combined assets in excess of $50,000,000; condensed milk companies having assets in excess of $5,000,000 and ice cream and frozen products companies with assets in excess of $25,000,000.

The petition seeks to enjoin the corporation, its officers and directors from obtaining any more stocks of competing corporations, and also asks the court to direct the defendants to dispose of the stock of competing corporations which have been acquired.

"SUIT-CASE" MARRIAGES.-"Suitcase marriages" have been discussed so much in England that the Church Assembly will consider a reform of the law relating to the publication of marriage banns.

The present law has resulted in the renting of rooms in a parish for three weeks in which a suit-case is left to establish residence. It is proposed that matrimony be permitted in the church of the parish in which either of the parties is entered on the electoral roll whether actually resident there or not.

121

CASE AND COMMENT

NIPISSING CENTRAL RAILWAY CASE.-A great deal of interest has been taken by the public throughout the Dominion in the case of Nipissing Central Railway Co. v. Province of Quebec, which involves the right of the said railway company to acquire and use Crown lands in the Province of Quebec for the purpose of extending its Larder Lake Branch into the Rouyn Mining District in that Province which is now attracting much attention by reason of its mineral resources. The case has a constitutional significance by reason of the Province calling in question the competence of the Parliament of Canada to enact the provisions of sec. 189 of The Railway Act, 1919 (9-10 Geo. V. Cap. 68).

The matter came before the Supreme Court of Canada, upon a reference by the Governor-General in Council, under the provisions of sec. 60 of The Supreme Court Act. The reference was as follows:

"1. Is it within the competence of Parliament to enact the provisions of sec. 189 of the Railway Act, 1919 (Can.) c. 68, with regard to provincial Crown lands? 2. If the answer to Q. I be in the affirmative, is said sec. 189, as it now stands, applicable to provincial Crown lands? 3. Is it obligatory upon the Governor in Council to give his consent under the provisions of s-s. 2 of said section upon any proper application therefor, or has he discretion to grant or refuse such consent as he may see fit?"

The report of the case we have had access to is that found in [1926] 1 D.L.R. 161. It there appears, although it is not formally so stated, that Mr. Justice Newcombe delivered the judgment of the Court, for all the other judges who heard the case concurred with him and did not write. The first question submitted to the Court, Newcombe, J., after making a very complete survey of prior legislation in pari materia, answered in the affirmative. The following excerpts are taken from that part of his reasons which immediately relate thereto :

'Argument seems unnecessary to show that s. 189 is intended to apply to provincial Crown lands, or that it is, in relation to those lands, within the enacting authority of Parliament, if the previous corresponding enactments to which I have referred, and from which

it is mediately or immediately derived, had that application, and were competently sanctioned.

The legislative authority of Parliament to give effect to s. 189, in its application to provincial Crown lands, might, however, present some difficulties were it not already affirmed by ultimate authority; but, in view of the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Vancouver case, AttorneyGeneral for B. C. v. C. P. R.1, neither the meaning of the section, nor the power to enact it, is questionable in this Court.

It follows, I think, from the judgment of their Lordships that, in relation to railways, the authority given to Parliament by s. 91 of the B. N. A. Act, 1867, necessarily involves the power to take provincial lands for railway purposes.

I think that this Court ought to follow the decision of their Lordships. It was given nearly 20 years ago, and it has ever since been acted upon in practice. The provision which it upholds has, in the interval, been enacted and re-enacted by Parliament without any material change affecting the questions with which we are now concerned, and has thus become as firmly established in the legislation of the country as any statutory enactment, emanating from a Legislature of limited powers, can possibly be."

The second question is also answered in the affirmative by Newcombe, J. As to the third question, the learned Judge said:

"The company is constituted and its powers are conferred by Parliament, which, as a condition to the taking of Crown lands, has required the consent of the Governor in Council, who thus, as the donee of Parliament, is entrusted with the power of consent, to be exercised as an incident of the good government of the country; there is a duty to consider and to exercise sound discretion, but it is a duty involving political rather than legal responsibility, and in respect to the execution of which the Governor in Council is not answerable to the Judicial Tribunals."

It was contended by counsel for the Province that sec. 189 of The Railway Act, 1919, was ultra vires because it did not provide for adequate compensation where Crown lands are taken. For this proposition the recent case of Montreal Corporation v. Montreal Harbour Commissioners2 was relied on. This contention was dealt with by Newcombe, J., as follows:

"In the first place, it may be said that s. 189, at least, does not fail in provision for indemnity more than did the legislation which

1 [1906] A.C. 204.

2(1925) 42 T.L.R. 98.