Review of Periodicals able in most cases in the interests of the legal profession." Legal History. "Normandy under William the Conqueror." By Charles H. Haskins. American Historical Review, v. 14, p. 453 (Apr.) . "The organization of Norman society is feudal, with the accompaniments of feudal tenure of land, feudal military organization, and private justice, but it is a feudalism which is held in check by a strong ducal power. The military service, owing to the duke, has been systematically assessed and is regularly enforced. Castles can be built only by the duke's license and must be handed over to him on demand. Private war and the blood feud are carefully restricted, and private jurisdictions are restrained by the reserved jurisdiction of the duke and by the mainte nance of a public local administration." This scholarly paper also throws some light on the curia, the ancestor of the English curia regis. "It is clear that, contrary to Freeman's view of the exclusion of ecclesi astics from the Norman curia, the bishops took an active part in its proceedings, and it is probably among them, rather than in the office of seneschal, that we should seek the origin of the English justiciarship." Burgundy. "The Formation and Constitu tion of the Burgundian State (Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.)" By Prof. Henri Pirenne. American Historical Review, v. 14, p. 477 (Apr.). Legal Interpretation. "Extrinsic Evidence in Respect to Written Instruments." By Prof. C. A. Graves. 14 Virginia Law Register 913 (Apr.). This paper, though read before the Vir ginia State Bar Association as long ago as August, 1893, has been quoted with approval by several of the Supreme Courts of the states and has been referred to frequently in legal literature. It can properly be considered a legal classic. In it Professor Graves denies there is any difference between patent and latent ambiguities. Legislative Procedure (Congress). "The Powers of the Speaker." By Prof. Edwin Maxey. Forum, v. 41, p. 344 (Apr.). "Viewing the powers of the Speaker both as a moderator and as a political leader, we cannot fail to see that he is an officer of great power—in fact, he is the first man in our legis lative system. But this power he has se cured not by laying violent hands on it—it has been granted him by the House in accord ance with the dictates of experience and the logic of facts. . . . The rules of the House ought not to be held accountable for the fact that Joseph G. Cannon has an arbitrary and imperious cast of mind. If this diagnosis is correct, the logical remedy would be a change in the Speakership rather than a revision of the rules."
235
"The Rules of the House of Representa tives: A Criticism." By Gov. Claude A. Swanson (of Virginia). "The Rules of the House: A Defense." By Frederick C. Stevens, M. C. Review of Reviews, v. 39, pp. 465, 470 (Apr.). Marriage and Divorce. "The Divorce Ques tion in the United States." By C. LaRue Munson and William D. Crocker. 18 Yale Law Journal 387 (Apr.). This paper, which was read before the PanAnglican Congress at London last June, de rives its facts and conclusions largely from three recognized authorities in the United States: (1) "Report on Marriage and Divorce" by Carroll D. Wright, U. S. Commissioner of Labor, (2) "History of Matrimonial Institu tions," by George E. Howard, Ph.D., of Chicago University, and (3) "Bishop on Mar riage, Separation, and Divorce. ' ' Divorce legis lation in the United States is grouped into three periods, the Colonial, that before the Civil War, and that of the last fifty years. The paper gives a valuable though brief historical summary of divorce legislation, with an analysis of the causes differentiating such legislation from that existing in England and other countries. The work accomplished by the Pennsylvania commissioners to examine and codify divorce laws, the subsequent National Divorce Congress held in Washing ton in February, 1906, and the Uniform Divorce Code unanimously adopted in Novem ber, 1906, at an adjourned meeting of the Congress are given much attention. This code has been adopted by two states. New Jersey and Delaware. The conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in August, 1907, unanimously endorsed the act, and the legislatures of several states are now considering its adoption. Equity Sutts. "Of Matrimonial Actions as Equity Suits and of the Pleadings Therein." By W. A. Purrington. 9 Columbia Law Re view 321 (Apr.). Prepared by a New York lawyer with special reference to New York courts. "To sum up the matter, the weight of authority seems to be, (1) that in New York, and in all states wherein the statute has created matrimonial actions and placed their conduct in Chancery, those causes are equity suits, to which equitable maxims are appli cable, (2) that although, beyond doubt, proper pleading in these suits requires that all the facts which the statute declares shall be bars to a decree should be set up affirma tively as defenses, nevertheless such is the importance to the state of a stable marriage relation that even under the prevailing and lax pleading in which affirmative defenses are anticipated and the general issue only is pleaded by the answer, for fear that affirma tive defenses may imply an admission of guilt,—nevertheless the Court in its discre tion may require that, if the existence of any one of those defenses shall transpire in evi
