reports and discuss legal subjects selected by themselves. In a short time the assistants formed themselves into a semi-autonomous body, to which the Council delegated some of its own functions, reserving to itself only the supreme control and guidance. This body holds in its hands the admission of new members, and the Council simply ratifies its decisions. It controls the conduct of its members, organises the gratuitous defence of accused persons in towns where there are no advocates, and establishes free consultations. A similar organisation was established in Moscow, and lately in other big towns where there are Councils.

Unfortunately the Councils met with persistent opposition in their organisation of the assistants from the High Court, which taking refuge in the silence of the Statutes in this matter, denied the Councils any power over the assistants.

The law on private attorneys has a specially unfavourable influence on the development of the "stage," for it enables assistants to practice independently of their patrons by obtaining the certificates of private attorneys. As these certificates are given by the Courts which exercise disciplinary powers over private attorneys, the assistants in the capacity of private attorneys are placed under two conflicting systems of discipline, neither of which accomplishes its object. The Court has only formal control over such assistants, and takes no cognisance of their moral standing, while the Councils are unable to punish their delinquencies, because the delinquent practices as a private attorney holding his certificate from the Court. The bond between the Order and the assistants became weaker under this influence. In

1 In 1910, in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, no fewer than 32,767 persons availed themselves of these consultations, 12,217 of these receiving advice gratis, while the remainder contributed the small sum of £763, of which £706 spent on the maintenance of eleven offices.

most of the provincial towns no organisation exists at all, and the assistants are entirely left to their own devices.1

The question of the admission of women to the Order arose for the first time in 1908, when the Council of the Bar of Moscow sanctioned the admission of three ladies as assistants. Their example was followed by other Councils, but recognition was entirely refused by the High Court.

The organisation of free legal advice also drew the attention of the Russian Bar. Until lately no fewer than sixty towns had organised free consultations. In 1909, after forty years of existence, the Senate, whose function it is to interpret the law, found that such organisations are illegal. Although the Minister of Justice, in his report to the Duma, paid a tribute to these organisations, and recognised that they had "gained the confidence of the population," the Presidents of some of the Courts hastened to suppress them.

Rules of etiquette similar to those of the Bars of Western Europe were adopted by the Order-confraternity between the members; interchange of courtesies; mutual disclosure of documents relating to cases by opposing barristers, etc. Advertisement and solicitation of every kind, as well as the establishment of law bureaux, are strictly prohibited. Certain kinds of commerce and agencies are considered incompatible with the dignity of the Order.

As has been said the Statutes do not limit the profession to pleading in the Courts, but allow a member of the Bar to conduct the execution of judgments. Owing to this the Order contains a certain number of members who make a speciality of this branch-recovery of debts, liquidation in bankruptcy, etc., occupations which do not require either

1 An inquiry made among the assistants of St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1907-10 revealed that a considerable number of them have gradually assumed only a nominal connection with the legal profession, earning their livelihood by other means; agency, commerce, clerkship, teaching, lecturing in the Universities, &c. In St. Petersburg only forty-three per cent. of assistants actually work under the control of their patrons, in Moscow the percentage is smaller yet, only thirty-seven.

knowledge or talent, but only a special kind of cleverness. They never plead in the Courts, and by various means avoid defence by nomination when their turn comes, and taking no interest in the life of the Order only help to lower its prestige.

The Order may, however, be proud that from the very beginning and up to the present date it has always counted among its members eminent men of learning, orators, and men of distinction. Among these may be mentioned S. A. Mouromtzeff, the first President of the first Duma, under whose high authority all parties inclined with respect.

The repression of the last few years has engendered in the Order a new sense of unity and a determination to concentrate their forces in the fight for their independence. The general meeting of the Moscow Bar, on March 7, 1910, was marked by extraordinary emotion, and the multitude of members present, after hearing the ardent speeches denouncing the increasing attacks on their liberties, instructed the Council to take immediate steps to strengthen the organisation. At the present time the Russian Bar is on the eve of reorganisation. The projected change threatens to deprive it of all independence and to put it entirely into the hands of the Minister of Justice. Whether the reactionary flood will submerge the independence of the Bar as it has already submerged that of the Courts, or whether it has reached its highest point and the ebb will begin, the near future will show.

L. P. RASTORGOUEFF.

95

VI. CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

LAW.

Berlin Society of Comparative Jurisprudence.

THE

HE Vereigung für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft und Volkswirthschaftslehre zu Berlin has held at Heidelberg, in September, its first Special Conference. This body is now some seven years old, and draws members from all parts of the world: it publishes a monthly paper (Blätter) of considerable scientific value, and a very exhaustive triennial digest of the general legislation of the world, while meetings are held regularly in Berlin. It had not, however, previously organised a general conference, and it is a matter for surprise and congratulation that the arrangements were all so well thought out and worked so excellently. This fortunate result was due mainly to the President, Dr. Felix Meyer, Judge of the Royal Prussian Court of Appeal, and the Hon. Sec., Dr. von Levinski. Heidelberg is of course well accustomed to the meeting of learned congresses; the University put its buildings at the disposal of the Assembly for meetings, whilst the Town Hall was available for social gatherings. The festivities also included visits, on the invitation of the City and Grandducal Government respectively, to Mannheim and BadenBaden. The City of Mannheim kindly provided a first-rate operatic performance, and the town of Heidelberg gave a water-party, with magnificent illuminations of the castle and bridge.

On the scientific side, the proceedings were of uncommon interest. It was remarked that really good papers, embodying new ideas, were the rule and not the exception. Six sections were formed, for the discussion of various fields of the wide area covered by the society's scope. To enumerate the interesting papers read would be to print the

programme. It must suffice to say that universal attention was paid to the following papers. Dr. Neukampf (Judge of the Imperial Appeal Court) contributed one on the Nationality of Juristic Persons. He urged that the recommendation of the Institute of International Law, making the law of the siège social determine the nationality of the corporation, should be modified so as to substitute the law of the place of incorporation. Discussion on this was animated, and a decision was not reached. Professor Heinsheimer (Heidelberg) who contributed powerful aid in making the Congress a success-read a paper on Private Rights in Social Conflicts, which was very thorough, and much appreciated. Professors Jitta (Amsterdam) and Tilsch (Prague) put before their audience some fresh and illuminative ideas on Private International law, and a galaxy of talent treated the neverending problem of Foreign Judgments. Dr. Meyer himself spoke on the Unification of Bills of Exchange law. Professors Hollatz, Pappafava and Pranzataro discussed the Law of Aviation; they did not, however, refer to the theory of Dr. Lycklama à Nijeholt that the doctrine that "the air is free" did not mean with the Romans that the air-space is free to all comers, but that the physical material of the atmosphere is insusceptible of appropriation by anyone, and can be drawn off at will by others.

Constitutional Law received much attention, Professor Tambaro (Naples) speaking of Proportional Representation, and Dr. J. Zergenyi (Sopron) on Hungarian Constitutionalism compared with International Vwrechtspflege Vwgerichtsbarkint. Dr. Horn (Paris) spoke of International Vormandschaftsrecht. Great interest was taken in two papers by Professor Peritch (Belgrade), one expounding Servian Divorce law, and the other treating of the Servian joint family or Zadruga. This institution so took the fancy of the Conference, that it referred to itself thenceforward in confidential moments as dèr ganz Zadruga! Dr. Rusztem