The second issue of the Harvard Law Review, to be published on December 10, will contain three special articles, all by former editors of the Review; E. M. Morgan '02, professor of Law, and acting vice dean of the Law School, S. P. Simpson, a member of the New York bar, and O. J. Rogge, a member of the Chicago bar are contributors.
Mr. Morgan's article is entitled "Functions of Judge and Jury in the Determination of Preliminary Questions of Fact." The ordinary idea with regard to law is that juries decide questions of law. It often happens, however, that, under exclusionary rules of evidence, whether certain evidence be given to the jury at all depends on the existence or non-existence of some preliminary fact. It is generally said that this preliminary fact must be determined by a judge. This article shows when this last statement is true or not.
The topic of Mr. Simpson's piece is "The Interstate Commerce Commission and Railroad Consolidation." This is a statement of the rapidly developing law in respect to railroad mergers since the transportation act of 1920, which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission authority over such mergers.
The third and final special article, written by Mr. Rogge, discusses "The Differences in the Priority of the United States in Bankruptcy and Equity Receiverships." This points out the curious fact that it is of substantial value to the United States that assets of an insolvent debtor should be distributed in an equity receivership rather than in bankruptcy. To other creditors, on the other hand, it is advantageous that it should be done in bankruptcy. The article suggests a brief statute by which the differences could be eradicated.
Editors Write Notes
There are five notes, written by the editors of the Review, several of which are of more than passing interest to students of law. The first concerns the recent case of MacAllen v. Massachusetts. The decision of this case by the United States Supreme Court is of great importance to the taxing systems of the states; the note gives a detailed analysis of the decision.
The second note, entitled "Public Interest as a Jurisdictional Requirement under Section five of the Federal Trade Commission Act," is a comment on the very recent case of the Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, and has to do with the extent and power of the Commission to enjoin unfair methods of competition.
Two other notes are entitled "Evidence of Statements Made in the Presence of a Party" and "Death Duties Affecting Martial Property Rights," while the fifth, discussing "The Rights of Privacy Today," has a history concerning the Law School. Thirty-nine years ago, Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court and C. G. Warren, wrote an article in the Law Review which spoke of the right to privacy. This had great influence in recognizing a new right, and affected the growth of the law. The note reviews decisions on points since the article was written 39 years ago.
There are also two notes in the new legislation department of the Review. The first is entitled "The Delegates of Discretion in Massachusetts Licensing Statutes," while the second comments upon "The Uniform Bank Collection Cotle."