but brave altruistic men, with God's help, won the victory for the cause of right, and to-day freedom and peace reign throughout the world.

Alas many Canadian sons did not return, and now sleep their last sleep far from home and loved ones.

They left our shores in the flush of their youth and strength, fully realising what might be in store for them, and prepared to make the supreme sacrifice.

Those whose names are upon this tablet were known to all of us. Theirs were familiar faces. This Hall was associated with their labours and their ambitions, and it is fitting that we should here unveil this memorial on which, in letters of bronze, are inscribed the names of some of our legal brethren who fell in the great war.

May it meet the eyes of all who visit this temple of Justice, and be to them an incentive to live and if needs be to die for the sacred cause of Justice.

It is in no boastful spirit that we recall Canada's record from the outbreak of the war until its close, but we cannot, and ought not to forget it.

How came it that at the very outbreak of the war, when Britain threw her sword into the scales, our peace-loving Canadian nation sprang to arms; that our womenfolk, midst their tears, readily gave their menfolk to the great cause and that throughout the long years of the struggle one fixed and unalterable resolve to win or to die dominated the souls of Canada's soldier sons. It was the circumstance that Canadians are a liberty loving people, and are governed by that spirit to which Patrick Henry gave expression in his never-to-be-forgotten words: "Give me Liberty or give me Death." That spirit is an inseparable, an integral part of the nature of the Canadian people. It will ever live in their hearts, and must ever be reckoned with by the enemies of Justice. On Thanksgiving Day I was present at the unveiling of a war memorial at Oshawa, one feature of the proceedings being the depositing of wreaths at its base by relatives and friends of those who had fallen. It was a touching scene; fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives and children taking part. Their grief and sorrow were made manifest by their sobs, sighs, tears, and sad expressions. One poor old mother, having deposited a single little flower, tottered away sobbing. As she was passing me I pressed her hand, whereupon she looked up and whispered, her eyes full of tears, 'I am happier than if he had not gone'.

She reminded me of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi. Like Cornelia, she possessed no jewels, except her only son, and him, in sorrow, but willingly she gave to her country. The spirit of resignation gave her comfort. May it do so to any bereaved ones here to-day.

In all parts of our country war memorials are being erected and will serve many a good purpose. They will remind us of the attack upon the cause of freedom. They will remind us of the failure of that attack, and they will mark our gratitude towards those who died that we might live in freedom and in peace. May these memorials prove an inspiration to succeeding generations to be worthy of those who gave their lives, their all, in order to bequeath to them the priceless heritage of freedom.

Professor James W. Garner, of the University of Illinois, has an inter esting article on the Geneva Protocol in the January issue of the American Journal of International Law.

66

THE GENEVA PROTOCOL.-This contribution is an exposition of the Geneva Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes by James W. Garner, one of the editors of the Journal and recently President of the American Political Science Association. Professor Garner considers that the Protocol 'represents by far the most advanced step yet taken in the direction of the peacable settlement of international differences and the outlawry of wars of aggression." No one can study the Protocol," he says, "without being impressed by its completeness as a scheme for the accomplishment of the objects which are contemplated." In his opinion, it "embodies a practical, safe and reasonably effective plan for the achievement of three great ends which the world professes to cherish. Its acceptance will necessitate, it is true, the assumption of what will be regarded by some states as heavy obligations and for this reason it will probably not be acceptable to them. Their rejection of it will, it may be assumed, be accompanied by the usual professions of keen interest and profound sympathy.' The old illusion that common objects such as those contemplated by the protocol can be achieved without common obligations will continue to persist in many quarters. But it is submitted that the true test in determining whether obligations of this kind can be safely assumed is to be found not so much in their character or extent as in the value of the objects to be accomplished. The value to Europe, in par ticular, of a guarantee of security; the economy to the world in a general reduction of armaments; and the benefit to mankind from the abolition of wars of aggression would be incalculable, and for the accomplishment of which states could well afford to assume large obligations and responsibilities. It is not improbable that if the Protocol were generally ratified and its obligations assumed with a sincere determination to perform them, in case performance were required, there would in practice be few occasions when the duty of mutual assistance would be necessary. The very knowledge of the existence of such an obligation, if there were a general conviction that it would be faithfully performed whenever the occasion required, would, it may be fairly assumed, serve as a powerful deterrent to acts of aggression and make actual resort to measures of repression relatively rare."

Regarding the effect of the Japanese amendment which Mr. Garner says has been greatly exaggerated in the public mind, he thinks it is "of no great consequence and was added largely as a concession to Japanese sensibilities. The fact still remains that the party denying the obligation to arbitrate a dispute for the reason that it arises out of a domestic matter, will, if the claim is sustained by the Court be relieved of the obligation to do so, and it cannot be bound by any action taken by the Council or the Assembly in respect to the dispute."

CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.-In his contribution to the last number of the American Journal of International Law, Mr. Arthur K. Kuhn points out that President Coolidge, in his recent annual message

to Congress, approved of the movement now going on for the codification of international law. Although not mentioning the League of Nations in this connection, the President looked more hopefully in the first instance to a co-operation among representatives of the bar and members of international law institutes and societies." This is, in effect, the method adopted by the League at Geneva, in September last, when it appointed a committee of unofficial experts and authorised them to consult "the most authoritative organisations which have devoted themselves to a study of international law." Mr. Kuhn emphasises the fact that in this way, American organisations may co-operate in the important work of the codification of certain branches of international law, though the United States is not a member of the League of Nations.

LAW AND PUBLIC OPINION.-Senator Borah, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, comments as follows in the January Scribner on present conditions relating to the enforcement of law in the United States:

"Law enforcement has become a great national problem. This government was founded upon the theory that the people would obey the laws which they help to make. Upon no other theory can it be maintained. The basis upon which the whole structure rests is obedience to the law because it is the law. This principle is being sadly challenged by actual facts. I do not know of a more startling document that a report lately made by a special committee of the American Bar Association. According to this report, in 1920 there were 9,000 homicides in the United States; in 1921, 9,500. During the last ten years 85,000 people from poison, the pistol, the knife, or other unlawful means have suffered death. That seems inconceivable in a government less than one hundred and fifty years old founded upon the will and loyalty of the people and expressing through its institutions the highest exemplification of law and order. In 1922 there were 17 murders in the city of London, 260 in the city of New York, 137 in the City of Chicago. In 1921 there were 121 robberies in all of England and Wales combined, 1,445 in New York City, 2,417 in the city of Chicago. This presents a great national problem which can never be remedied except through the invincible power of public opinion."

"Until either philosophers become kings or kings philosophers, States will never succeed in remedying their shortcomings."

SOCRATES.

The sixth consolidation of the laws enacted by "His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia " has just been proclaimed as being in force. The public has no excuse now for pleading ignorance of the local statute law, which, purged and amended, orders so many of our activities. Three bulky volumes furnish eloquent testimony that our rulers have not been idle since 1912 when the last edition was published, and this increase in size, largely due to the amendments annually passed, has its compensation in the convenience and usefulness of periodical revisions. Legislatively speaking, we are a young country, and in fact fortunate that our law can be so readily reduced to this compact form. The method is comparatively modern, and, in old countries like England with statutes dating back for centuries, beset with far more complication.

Outwardly nothing could be drier than a volume of statutes. But law plays a large part in our daily lives and every man is brought into more and more intimate touch with its behests and prohibitions. Law too, as Dicey has shown, is the outcome of public opinion, and at the same time generates public opinion. Its soul is the psychology of a community and in it are embalmed the ideas which that community cherishes. So, too, Dicey says that from an inspection of the laws of a country it is often possible to conjecture what is the class which holds or has held predominant power in any particular period. It is important to realize what laws are made, because they are a very definite indication of the doctrines and movements of the age. The process by which ideas are ultimately embodied in law is hard to follow. An idea gets abroad, passes into current thought and gradu

9-C.B.R.-VOL. III.

ally moulds a public opinion which takes shape in law. Circumstances will often play as great a part as argument in bringing such opinion to a head. Machinery was as much the cause of the legislative activity of last century as the philosophy of Bentham, and the conditions created by machinery forced legislation which was opposed to the doctrines of his school. The point is that the facts and notions. of to-day and yesterday may in a few years be crystallised into a

statute.

Law has in the past been mainly indigenous, that is, devised in a country to meet its own needs. It is a feature of modern law due to the extensive diffusion of knowledge about what other peoples are doing, that many a statute is now borrowed from some other country. The process is active between the provinces of Cañada, and other strains come from England, the United States, Australia and so forth. Thus we profit by the experience of other countries and, so far at least as the British Empire is concerned, can keep our law more uniform with that which prevails elsewhere no small gain when we realize the international scope of trade and the extensive movement of population.

Historically our statutes are merely the measures deliberately adopted by our Legislature as the province has advanced step by step from the pioneering stage. But there is much other law. The layman does not perhaps fully comprehend what other law he is supposed to know and obey. There is of course the Common Law, with its foundation of precedents-some of it so patently reasonable that any man knows it, other parts so refined in wisdom that even the courts cannot elucidate it. Then, there is the Dominion Law, such as the criminal code; the law made in the Imperial Parliament, to-day practically confined to treaties; and municipal law, the regulations whereof we encounter (and break) so often in our daily lives.

So far I have somewhat rambled from my theme, but my object has been to emphasize that more can be learned from our new volumes of statutes than merely our rights and duties, what we can do, and what we must do without. In what direction is society travelling, toward socialism or away from it? Have any new factors come into play in British Columbia that will exercise any considerable influence? Such questions may be asked, and in fact there have been various changes of magnitude, as I will endeavour to show. "To-day we are all of us socialists," an observation important enough even as a half truth— and the socialistic wave, started in the Victorian era for the protection of society, is flowing strongly. It is a curious paradox that the first legislation in England smacking of collectivism (Dicey's phrase