declaration of bankruptcy or the presentation of a petition or the making of an assignment may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, but it passes my comprehension how a one-year period or a five-year period is to be calculated from the time of the settlor's becoming "insolvent," as defined by s. 2. Again, a settlor may become insolvent within one year after the date of the settlement, and be declared a bankrupt eighteen months after the date of the settlement, and the case would seem to fall under both branches of the section, so that the settlement is both absolutely void and only prima facie void. Mirabile dictu!

13. Why is s. 32 left in its present state of obscurity? That it is obscure is evidenced by the fact that some courts have regarded it as qualifying s. 31 in the sense that a transaction prima facie void under s. 31 might be supported by proof of facts bringing the case within s. 32. This construction of s. 32 is, however, excluded by the opening words "subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act with respect to the avoidance of certain settlements and preferences." Another construction suggested in the cases is that the section is applicable only to transactions occurring between the presentation of a petition and the making of a receiving order, so as to relieve persons dealing with the debtor in good faith and for value from the hardship resulting from the strict application of the rule that upon the making of a receiving order the bankruptcy relates back to the time of presentation of the petition. If this is the true construction then all the references to an "assignor" and an “authorized assignment" should be struck out as meaningless.

14. Why should a bank, paying cheques of its customers (necessarily without conducting a minute enquiry, every time that a cheque is presented, to ascertain whether a petition has been presented or a receiving order or assignment has been made which may affect the customer's credit balance), receive only the meagre and uncertain protection of s. 34? Sub-s. 2, obliges the bank, if it has ascertained that the customer is an undischarged bankrupt or has made an assignment, to notify the trustee and to cease making payments out of the account, but does not in terms excuse the bank if it makes payments in ignorance of the bankruptcy or assignment. As to after acquired property the bank may get some protection under sub-s. 1 of s. 34, but (in view of the terms of the second part of sub-s. 1 of s. 34), it is doubtful if the payment of a customer's cheque would be a transaction within the protection of s. 32, and outside of these sections there seems to be nothing in the Act which would

prevent the application of the vesting clauses of ss. 6, 9 and 25. Therefore, if a receiving order is made against a customer of a bank, his credit balance at the bank is vested in the trustee as of the date of the presentation of the petition, and it would seem to follow that payments made by the bank out of the account after the presentation of the petition could not be set off by the bank against the trustee's claim.

15. Why does s. 51 provide for the payment, secondly, of the costs of the execution creditor coming within s. 11(1) and (10), and say nothing about the costs of a garnishing, attachment or judgment creditor? Why is s. 51(6) expressed in such obscure terms?

16. Why is a provision as to the ranking of claims against a debtor who "owes or owed debts both individually and as a member of one or more different co-partnerships" tacked on to a provision as to the law of set-off, in s. 28, and substantially repeated in different language in s. 51(3)? Other provisions on the same subject are to be found in ss. 37(4) and 47.

17. Why should so little attention be paid in the Act to the chronological order of events? Why, for example, should the provisions as to dividends (s. 37) precede those as to the proof of claims (s. 45), or why should the provisions as to creditors' meetings (including provisions as to the first meeting, the appointment of a trustee and the appointment of inspectors) (ss. 42, 43), be separated so far from other provisions as to the appointment of a custodian, the appointment and removal of a trustee (s. 14, 15), and why should provisions as to the compositions, extensions and schemes of arrangement (s. 13) occupy a place so early in the Act, thus disturbing any attempt at an orderly statement of the initial proceedings under the Act?1

Osgoode Hall Law School.

JOHN D. FALCON BRIDGE.

1

'NOTE. In the Book of The Proverbs we read:

"There be three things which are too wonderful for me,

Yea, four which I know not:

The way of an eagle in the air;

The way of a serpent upon a rock;

The way of a ship in the midst of the sea;

And the way of a man with a maid."

If the author of this saying had had the opportunity of reading the Bankruptcy Act, he might have enlarged his list of things 'too wonderful' for him.

THE CANADIAN BAR
REVIEW

THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW is the organ of the Canadian Bar Association, and it is felt that its pages should be open to free and fair discussion of all matters of interest to the legal profession in Canada. The Editor, however, wishes it to be understood that opinions expressed in signed articles are those of the individual writers only, and that the REVIEW does not assume any responsibility for them.

It is hoped that members of the profession will favour the Editor from time to time with notes of important cases determined by the Courts in which they practise.

Contributors' manuscripts must be typed before being sent to the Editor at the Exchequer Court Building, Ottawa.

TOPICS OF THE MONTH.

ACADEMIC HONOURS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE C.B.A. — Our readers will be interested to learn that at a Convocation of Queen's University, held on the 12th of last month, Sir James Aikins, K.C., President of the Canadian Bar Association, received the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. Sir Robert Borden, K.C., Chancellor of the University, presided at the Convocation. At the same time similar degrees were conferred upon His Excellency the GovernorGeneral of the Dominion and Sir Clifford Sifton. Four other institutions of learning in Canada had preceded Queen's University in paying a tribute to the distinguished place held by Sir James Aikins as a citizen of Canada, namely, the University of Manitoba in 1919, Alberta University and McMaster University in 1921, and Toronto University in 1924. Sir James graduated in Arts in Toronto University in the year 1875.

A NEW BRITISH WORLD.-Before the report of the proceedings at the recent Imperial Conference in London has been submitted to Parliament we cannot speak of it authoritatively, but so much of its substance as has been disclosed in the press quite justifies us in regarding it as the most important document ever drawn up in the history of empires either past or present. Take the following declaration of what is to be henceforth the actual interrelationship of the British State and its derivative States:-" The position and

mutual relation of the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status and in no way subordinate one to the other in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of nations," where can we find a parallel to this in all the centuries of civilization? Not in the political history of Greece, for Thucydides pours scorn on Athens for refusing autonomy to her dependent communities. Nor yet in the case of Rome-although the character of the empire of the Caesars more nearly approaches our own than any other-for Roman Imperialism meant, to quote a modern writer," the subordination of a world to a city." Other ancient empires were for the most part organized to enable conquerors to pillage the conquered in a constitutional way. Nor would any student be disposed to see in the mediaeval empire founded by Charlemagne a prototype of the British Empire as consolidated after the loss of the thirteen American colonies in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. From that time on the development of the great colonies into autonomous States, bound to the mother country only by the tie of loyalty, has furnished a unique chapter in the annals of civilisation; now a more marvellous chapter is begun with the voluntary surrender by the parent State of its former supremacy and the formation of a commonwealth of nations with no hegemony enjoyed by one member over any of the other members of the group.

In their enthusiasm to find a fitting designation for this great adventure of the British world some of the newspapers have called it a "New Magna Charta,” and others profess to see in it a "New Declaration of Independence." Neither of these terms is appropriate. The liberties secured by the Great Charter were wrung from an unwilling monarch by the upper classes of the realm under arms. The Declaration of Independence was also the result of successful armed revolt of Englishmen against a foolish King. Nor indeed could it be likened to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789 which, according to John Quincy Adams, had to be "extorted from the grinding necessity of a reluctant nation." Rather is it a brand-new and unparalleled thing in history whereby the King is exalted and his royal office magnified by the free choice of the people of independent communities scattered over the face of the world. And so we are led to think that the term chosen by the Conference to signify the political entity that has emerged from its

deliberations is the correct one. A Commonwealth' is the word for it. Various meanings have been given to the term by philosophers of the past,-but Sir Thomas Smith (De Republica Anglorum) defines it adequately for our immediate use when he says "A common-wealth is called a society ...... of a multitude of free men, collected together, and united by common accord and covenants among themselves." The British Empire of the past century has died but to live again in the more spacious life of the British Commonwealth of Nations-whereat all good men should rejoice.

We Canadians are honoured in the acknowledgment that the federation shaped by our own statesmen in 1867 immeasurably predisposed the minds of public men in other parts of the empire to the adoption of similar constitutional forms, all of which have logically led up to last month's momentous achievement in London. We are further honoured by the fact that our representatives there played a very important and distinctive part in securing the happy issue of the Conference. Such things stir one's patriotism, fan it into an ardour before which considerations of party politics shrivel and fade. Had Canada not been represented by men of tact and vision, of knowledge, of sound judgment and loyalty to the throne, inconceivable mischief might have ensued to the whole British world. We cannot rejoice in what has been done without at the same time acclaiming the men of our country who had so large a share in it.

THE NEW YORK CRIME COMMISSION. We have recently read Mr. Clarence Darrow's amazing article, entitled "Crime and the Alarmists," in the October number of Harper's Magazine, in which he undertakes to establish that statistics are cooked by the alarmists to "induce legislators to pass more severe laws" against crime, that as a matter of fact there is not "an increasing trend of crime in America," that while "it is true that there are many more felonies in the United States than in England in proportion to the population" yet" this condition cannot be accounted for by the severity of punishment in England." Of course Mr. Darrow fails to sustain his thesis: how can he ignore, inter alia, such a responsible statement as that published by Judge Kavanaugh, a member of the Committee on Observation of the National Crime Association, that "there were 11,000 murders in 1924, and statistics show 12,000 murders in 1925." Concerning the methods of the American Courts in Criminal Cases Judge Kavanaugh adds: “I have compiled a list of 800 convictions where courts of review in this country have reversed convictions with