« PreviousContinue »
Battle Creek in an endeavour to regain his health, but, like his trip to Europe in the summer of 1910, he secured little or no benefit. His end was peaceful.
By the death of Mr. Owen Ritchie, of the legal firm of Cowan, Ritchie & Grant, at his residence, 1168 Nelson Street, the profession in Vancouver has lost a member who was a credit to the body. Mr. Ritchie expired suddenly and an inquest was held, the jury returning a verdict that death was due to heart failure. Although he only came to Vancouver eighteen months ago, during that time he gathered around him a large circle of friends and his demise will be received by them with the greatest sorrow. He conducted many cases for his firm in the local Courts, the most notable probably being that of the injunction proceedings instituted by the Silica Sand Company concerning Spanish banks. He was the son of the late Sir William J. Ritchie, formerly Chief Juctice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Educated at the University of Toronto, he afterwards studied law and was called to the Toronto Bar. When he came here he qualified to practice as a British Columbia barrister. Interment took place at Ottawa, to which city the remains were shipped.
Mr. George Tate Blackstock, K.C., Mr. Thomas Percy Galt, K.C., Mr. Ross Gooderham and Mr. George E. McCann have severed their connection with the old established law firm of Beatty, Blackstock & Company, and formed a partnership.
Mr. David Fasken is now senior partner in the firm of Beatty, Blackstock & Company, which also includes Messrs. M. K. Cowan, K.C., Alex. Fasken, Hugh E. Rose, K.C., E. M. Chadwick, K.C., and Arthur Armstrong. The company was founded over sixty years ago.
A wire was received at Prince Albert from Banff, Alta., announcing the death of Judge F. F. Forbes of this city. Judge Forbes had been in very indifferent health for some considerable time, and had left the city with the intention of spending a holiday at the coast. At Loggan he had an acute attack of the illness from which he was suffering and he returned to Banff, where he rapidly got worse, death taking place early next morning. Gordon Forbes, one of his sons, went to Banff and the body was brought to Prince Albert for interment.
Charles A. Russell, B.A., for the past three years a law student with the firm of Emery, Newell, Ford, Bolton and Mount of Edmonton, was the guest of honor at a complimentary banquet given in the Royal George hotel. Mr. Russell left the city for Wetaskiwin, where he will be associated with W. H. Odell in the practice of law.
Sutherland Cuddy, a Toronto barrister, has opened a law " office at No. 1 Labelle Building, Windsor,
THE FEAR OF INVASION.
In a recent article in The Independent, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in discussing “The Baseless Fear of War,” altempts to shew the absurdity of taxing the people for military armaments under the pretext of averting a possible invasion. He says: “To name our probable invaders and describe their means of invading us would banish all ground for anxiety. Think of a European power having to transport an army and its supplies across the Atlantic to attack us, always keeping in mind the question why and with what object. . . . It would possibly be our best policy to invite our invaders to land; guide them into the interior as far as they would go—getting in they would find easy, but when it came to the question how they would get out it would be another story, surrounded, as they would be, by hundreds of thousands of sharpshooters from every quarter of the com
pass. Our Republic, soon to number 100,000,000 of free and independent citizens, our men, old and young, ready with their rifles to do or die for their country if attacked, surely every man, even the narrow professional soldier in his same moments, must realize that no such hairbrained madness as invasion will ever be attempted. Our harbours could easily be torpedoed before the enemy could prepare and arrive."
This sanguine and somewhat sanguinary view, although consoling to national pride, is naturally at variance with the
opinions of some of our military experts. For example: Captain Paul B. Malone, of the United States Navy, has written for the April Century, a sketch in which he shews that New York city, the key to the wealth, commerce, and industry of this country, could easily be captured by a foreign power before there was time to concentrate enough trained men there to protect it; and that this capture would cripple the nation more than the combined taking of Boston, San Francisco, and Washington. He says: “In the Franco-German War, Germany mobilized and concentrated 320,000 men on the frontier of France in eighteen days, and twenty-one days after the issuance of the order for mobilization she had defeated the French in the battles of Wörth and Spicheren. With increased railroad facilities, she could concentrate to-day in much less time. Taking this as a standard of comparison, it is found that on the nineteenth day after the issuance of orders for mobilization, a first-class power, having gained control of the sea, could begin the debarkation of 100,000 men on the southern shores of Long Island. “What could we do in nineteen days? We have in time of peace 35,000 regular mobile troops available within the United States. There are about 110,000 organized militia, making a total of about 145,000 men available for immediate action. It is not desirable to go into details, but in general it may be stated that to expand these troops to war strength and to supply the infantry alone with the necessary equipment would require more time than the enemy would permit us to take. Without waiting to equip or expand, we could in eighteen days dispose approximately 35,000 men for the defence of Boston, 75,000 for the defence of New York, and 35,000 for the defence of Washington. “A threat against Boston and Washington would retain the troops in position for their defence, with the result that 75,000 partly trained and partly equipped men would meet 100,000 highly trained and perfectly equipped forces of the enemy. “A landing with a view to operations against New York may be made in Massachusetts or Connecticut, New Jersey, or Long Island. In the first case, New York might be captured only after a long campaign; in the second, decisive results would be secured in a brief period; in the last case, the issue might be decided possibly in a single battle.
“Any force which attempted to defend the city by 0. cupying it would be doomed to disaster. If defeated on Long Island, the troops must ultimately evacuate the city, as Wash. ington did, retreat to the north, and continue to fight in the open, or submit to capture in an attempt to hold the city. “Victory for the enemy on Long Island would mean the capture of New York, thus inflicting upon the United States the most serious blow it is possible to inflict in a single disas. ter. After the fall of New York, the capture of the forts at the mouth of the harbour would be an easy matter; the harbour thus opened to the enemy, the landing of troops and supplies might be conducted without molestation, and the campaign against the interior could be organized and started in less time than it would take us to expand our available troops to war strength and furnish them with the materials which are indispensable to their efficiency.” Invasion is improbable, but by no means impossible, Pru. dence would seem, therefore, to require that adequate plans of defence be outlined, and the means to make them effectual be matured. The game of war, as played in the twentieth century, with all the modern improvements in military art, would reach a crisis in so short a space as to leave little time for preparation. We would rejoice to see law take the place of arms, and arbitration rule the destinies of nations, instead of military force, but until this be possible, it is well to observe the Puri. tanic motto, and “keep our powder dry.”
WoL XXXIII. OCTOBER, 1913. No. 10.
THE INDEBTEDNESS OF MODERN JURISPRUDENCE TO MEDIEVAL ITALIAN IAW.
How much the world owes to Italian genius and labours! For Italy is “ the mother of us all.” The lamp of civilization has been handed on from Rome to modern nations by Italian runners. By Italy learning was re-established and the fine arts revived; Italy is truly called “ the mother of universities and the saviour of learning.” European commerce was originally revived by Italy, after the flood of barbarian invasions of Europe had spent itself. By Italians Roman law was recovered from antiquity, adapted for use in later times, and forever implanted as a living force in our modern civilization.
These grand achievements were accomplished by a people labouring under perhaps the worst political handicap known to history. For over thirteen centuries prior to 1871 Italy never enjoyed any of the blessings of a political union, and was either a prey to foreign invaders or torn asunder by fratricidal wars. During these many centuries Italy was but “a geographical expression "-to use Metternich's illuminating description. Modern united Italy is very youthful: Italy is not yet fifty years old." The exuberance of Italian patriotism in the recent war with Turkey bears witness to this youthfulness of modern Italy, which so ardently rejoiced in its opportunity to display national power.
The beginnings of Italian law—using the term “Italian * in its modern sense—start with the emergence of Italy as a separate country out of the fifth century ruins of the Roman Empire of the West, finally extinguished in 476. About a century later the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy was destroyed by the splendid military exploits of Belisarius and Narses, generals of Justinian. Once more Italy and Rome, the ancient imperial capital, were united to the Empire.
* She celebrated her 40th birthday in 1911.
VOL. XXXIII. C.L.T.--—j6