surnames.34 In case of parental diversity of citizenship, the agree ment of parents may decide the nationality of their children, but in default thereof children are deemed citizens of the communist State, but may renounce such citizenship on becoming of age.35

36

Persons registered as parents upon the entry of a birth of a child at the Bureau of Vital Statistics are deemed such, but parentage may also be proved by legal proceedings. The mother of an illegiti mate or a putative child may require the Bureau of Vital Statistics upon three months' notice to enter the name of the alleged father, but the latter may demand a judicial trial of the issue of paternity."

Apparently, prostitution, contrary to the general practice on the continent of Europe, is not recognized as a social institution, for it is provided that if a mother at the time of child's inception had sexual intercourse with several men, all of them may be ordered to contribute to the support of the mother, the expenses of child deliv ery and the child's subsequent maintenance.38

39

The property of parents and children remains separate, and parents cannot give their children into employ without the children's consent. Children must provide support for their indigent and disabled parents.40 While parental authority ceases upon the termination of children's minority, e.g., 18 for the males and 16 for the females, in the case of wards, the Department of Social Welfare with the court's consent may declare them to be legally of full age prior to their reaching the ages just mentioned.41

(c) POLITICAL RIGHTS.

The keynote to political rights in a communist state is individual. labour, for it is a toiler not employing in his work human hired labour for the purposes of gain, who possesses these rights solely and exclusively.42 Political rights are conferred on all toilers both manual and mental (for army, navy and civil service officials are included) of 18 years of age without discrimination as to sex, religion, nationality or residence.43

44

These political class rights reserved exclusively for the toilers include freedom of conscience, freedom of press and the monopoly of printing appliances,15 freedom of speech and public processions

"Ibid., sec. 145.

35 Ibid,. sec. 147.

36 Ibid., sees. 134 and 135.

37 Ibid., sec. 141.

38 Ibid.. sec. 144.

BO Ibid., secs. 157 and 160.

40 Ibid., secs. 164 and 165.

41 Ibid., sec. 191.

42 Constitution of R.S.F.S.R., July 10, 1918, art. 1, sec. 7; art. 4, sec. 64.

48 Ibid., art. 4. sec. 64a.

"Ibid., art. 2, sec. 13.

Ibid., art. 2. sec. 14.

46

49

47

and the monopoly of public buildings, freedom of combinations, freedom of free education, privilege of bearing arms, active and passive electoral rights,50 right of civil service,51 and the right of jury service.52

53

The remaining classes of the citizenry enjoy only the right of single citizenship throughout the territory of the federal communist State, and the right of religious and anti-religious propaganda.54 They are subject to the universal military service but in non-combatant capacity.55

All the classes of the communist State are subject to the universal labour duty.56

58

(d) CIVIL RIGHTS.

In contrast to the political rights, civil rights in a communist State are enjoyed by all the citizens thereof without distinction of sex, race, nationality, religion or origin." With the exception of idiots, mentally deficient persons and spendthrifts, no citizen may be limited in or deprived of civil rights otherwise than in accordance with the law. These civil rights include the right to migrate and settle anywhere on the territory of the communist State, to engage in lawful occupations, trades and professions, to acquire and dispose of personal property subject to restrictions provided by law, to contract and to trade and to organize industrial and commercial enterprises subject to the laws regulating the industrial and commercial activities and safeguarding the employment of labour.59

Real property is exempted from the commercial intercourse.60 Furthermore, nationalized and municipalized enterprises and buildings and their equipment, railroads and their rolling stock, nationalized ships, arms, explosives, military equipment, air machines (both planes and ships), radio and telegraph installations and their equipment, annulled paper securities, alcoholic liquors above certain strength and quick acting poisons are also excluded from the commercial intercourse.1

Ibid., art. 2, sec. 15.
Ibid., art. 2, sec. 16.

48 Ibid., art. 2, sec. 17.

49 Ibid., art. 1, sec. 3j; art. 2, sec. 19.

Ibid., art. 4, sec. 64.

51 Ibid., art. 1, sec. 7.

52 Judiciary Code of R.S.F.S.R., Nov. 17, 1922, art. 3, sec. 15.

53 Constitution of U.S.S.R., July 7, 1923, art. 2, sec. 7.

Constitution of R.S.F.S.R., July 10, 1918, art. 2, sec. 13.

"Ibid., art. 2, sec. 19.

56 Ibid., art. 1, sec. 3z; art. 2, sec. 18.

"Civil Code of R.S.F.S.R., Nov. 11, 1922, art. 4.

Ibid., arts. 6 and 8.

Ibid., art. 5.

Ibid., art. 21.

Ibid., arts. 22 and 23.

C.B.R.-VOL. II.-32

62

Land, nationalized and municipalized enterprises, buildings and ships may be leased by the government to private interests. Public utilities, enterprises employing more than a certain number of workmen, wireless and telegraph installations may form the subject matter of concessional grants to private interests by the communist government.63

A family in a communist State may not acquire more than two buildings at a time, nor sell more than one building at a time, and then not oftener than once in every three years. The monopoly of dealing in gold, silver and platinum coins and foreign currency is reserved to the State Bank, and to the members of the stock exchanges.

65

The right to trade above mentioned is further limited in that it does not extend to foreign trade, which is the monopoly of the federal communist government, exercised through a respective department. Independent participation in the foreign trade may be allowed in special cases to private interests, but always subject to the control of said department.66

The right to dispose of property by gift is limited in each instance to the property not exceeding in value $5,000. The right to dispose of property by will or on intestacy is limited both in the amount, which must not exceed $5,000, plus the household articles of the deceased, and in the class of heirs, who are restricted to the surviving spouse, descendants, and cripples and indigents supported by the deceased in his lifetime." In the absence of lawful heirs, or in the presence of an excess value property, the estate or its excess value, as the case may be, escheats to the State. As an exception, rights acquired by the deceased under any contract with the State, enure without limitation of value during the term of said contract for the benefit of the lawful heirs of the deceased.70

68

62 Ibid., arts. 22 and 71.

es Ibid., art. 55.

Ibid., art. 182. 65 Ibid., art. 24.

86 Ibid., art. 17.

Ibid., art. 138.

es Ibid., arts. 416, 418 and 419.

69 Ibid., art. 417.

19 Ibid., art. 416.

New York.

(To be continued.)

BORIS KOMAR.

LEGAL EDUCATION IN ONTARIO.1

Two distinct systems of legal education have grown up in Europe. One of these is to be found only in England and this we have followed more or less closely in Ontario. The other obtains, I think, universally on the Continent and has been followed in Canada only in the Province of Quebec. These systems differ in that the foundation of the jurisprudence in the one case is fundamentally different from that of the other. On the Continent Roman Civil Law has been the basis upon which the present superstructure has been built, while in England, as we all know, it has been the Common Law. On the Continent the study of Roman Civil Law was, in the middle ages, the concern of the Universities and little difficulty was found in supplanting everywhere local usage and local law by the systematized law of the Roman Code. The result was that in time the educational institutions in which Roman Law was taught obtained a large share in the training and testing of those who were to make law their vocation. To-day, therefore, those who intend to practise law in Continental Europe and in Quebec must study law systematically in a University, and University examinations carried on in co-operation with the state officials constitute the test of proficiency required of all students. In England the Common Law-a body of legal principles which are the result of judicial decision-has never been the subject of study in the Universities except to a very limited extent. The great jurists have not been University Professors, but mainly lawyers and judges. Legal education has always been in the hands of practitioners, subject to some limited control exercised by Parliament, and to-day the control of legal education for Attorneys and Solicitors is vested in the Incorporated Law Society, and for Barristers the same function is performed by the Inns of Court. The weakness of the English system lies in the failure to recognize the importance of a broad general education covering a range of subjects quite foreign to the future profession of the student, and lacking which, we cannot hope to have high legal scholarship or great jurists. To some extent

The writer disclaims any originality in this article. The material has largely been extracted from the report published, in 1922, by the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. It has been written to arouse, if possible, some interest in the profession of my own Province, so that the subject may be intelligently dealt with, if the motion which I am bringing forward in the Senate of the University of Toronto is approved, and a Committee appointed to meet a Committee of the Benchers to discuss the important problem of Legal Education, and the Establishment of a Law Faculty in the University.

this is overcome in England by the distinction made between Attorneys and Barristers. Students who aim at being Advocates or Judges generally recognise the necessity of a University training as a foundation upon which their legal education shall be built, but it is purely voluntary. It is upon University training, made compulsory, that the advantage of the Continental system rests.

Lawyers are notoriously conservative in their view. So we hear it said that a legal system good enough for England ought to be good enough for Canada. But when we bridged the gulf between Attorneys and Barristers by our Provincial legislation, and fused these into a new unit, we lost the distinguishing feature of the English system. No longer was there a branch of the legal profession in which University education and scholarship could count, and where students ambitious of success in the higher walks of the profession were encouraged to obtain a University training before entering upon their professional studies.

The weak feature of the English system is becoming more and more apparent. A jurisprudence founded on precedent has developed to such an extent that we no longer search for the legal principle involved in the case presented for consideration, but we grasp our digest and diligently search for a decision as nearly "on all fours" with the one in question as can possibly be found. Half a century ago and more, our great jurists, both English and American, were declaiming against the multiplication of decisions and reports. Chancellor Kent said, "The multiplication of books has become an intolerable evil." Sir Henry Maine said, "The frightful accumulation of case laws conveys to English jurisdiction a menace of revolution far more serious than any popular murmurs." Story said, "We are in danger of being overwhelmed by their number and variety, and we are threatened with the fearful calamity of being buried alive not in the catacombs but in the labyrinth of the law." If this was the case so long ago what is to be said of the conditions we have to face to-day? Leaving out of consideration the tens of thousands of decisions annually given in the United States and published in the American Digest by the West Publishing Company, we had in Canada last year about one thousand new decisions which are to be found in the Dominion Law Reports. It is a common remark among the elder school of lawyers and judges, that the younger men at the Bar rely too much upon books, and too little upon the elementary doctrines by which all cases should be decided, and that the result as it affects both lawyers and judges is pernicious in the extreme. No scholar or judge can hope successfully to utilize this mass of material in the