Austria and Hungary, Accession of, to the industrial property convention, 1883, etc., January 1, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4649.) d. Congo State, Further correspondence respecting the taxation of natives and other questions in the. Foreign office. (cd. 4701.) 14d.

Cuba, Accession of, to the convention signed at Genoa, 6th July, 1906, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field. Foreign office. (cd. 4698.) d.

Egypt, Accessions of British colonies, etc., to the commercial convention between the United Kingdom and, signed at Cairo, 29th October, 1889. Foreign office. (cd. 4700.) d.

Egypt and the Soudan, Reports by H. M. agent and consul-general on the finances, administration and condition of, in 1908. Foreign office. (cd. 4580.) 81d.

Germany, Exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and, confirming protocols defining boundaries between British and German territories in Africa. 22nd February, 5th March, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4699. d.

Hayti, Abrogation of the convention between the United Kingdom and, of 6th April, 1906, respecting nationality. 1st April, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4644.) d.

Mexico, Accession of, to the declaration respecting maritime law signed at Paris, April 16, 1856. February 13, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4582.)

d.

Opium question in China, Despatch from H. M. Minister in China forwarding a general report by Sir Alexander Hosie respecting the. Foreign office. (cd. 4702.) 21d.

Persia, Correspondence respecting the affairs of. [1906-1908.] Foreign office. (cd. 4581.) 1s. 11d.

Servia, Accession of British colonies, etc., to the treaty of commerce between the United Kingdom and, signed at Belgrade, February 17, 1907. Foreign office. (cd. 4648.)

d.

Siam, Despatch from H. M. minister in Siam forwarding a treaty between Great Britain and, signed at Bangkok, 10th March, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4646.) 71d.

Transvaal, Convention, dated 1st April, 1909, between the Governor

2 Official publications of Great Britain, India and many of the British colonies may be purchased of P. S. King & Son, Orchard House, 2 and 4 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, England.

of the, and the Portuguese province of Mozambique. Colonial office. (cd. 4587.) 1ąd.

United States of America, Denunciation of the agreement of November 19, 1907, between the United Kingdom and the, respecting commercial travellers' samples and import duties on British works of art. May 1, 1909. Foreign office. (cd. 4645.) d.

LIBERIA

Arbitration award in re the case Fischer and Lemcke vs. Houston Bros. and Co. Monrovia, 1907. 30 p.

Consular regulations of the Republic of Liberia. Monrovia, 1906. 8 p. Dept. of state.

Liberian Development Co., An agreement entered into by the government of the Republic of Liberia and the, chartered and limited January 5, 1906, together with a joint resolution of the Legislature ratifying the same. Monrovia. Monrovia. 12 p.

Memorandum from H. B. M.'s government on the subject of reforms in Liberia. January 14th, 1908. Dept. of state.

Message of the President of Liberia communicated to the second session of the thirty-first Legislature. Monrovia, 1908. 34 p.

Propositions submitted by the Ellsworth Company and the Americo Liberian Industrial Company to the government of Liberia. Monrovia. 1908. 25 p. Price, 10c.

Treaties and conventions concluded between the Republic of Liberia and foreign powers, 1848-1892. Monrovia, 1907. 64 p. Dept. of state. Tripartite agreement between the government of Liberia, Messrs. Emile Erlanger & Co., and The Liberian Development Company Chartered and Ltd. Monrovia, 1908. 31 p. Price, 25c.

NETHERLANDS

Deuxième conférence internationale de la paix. La Haye, 15 juin18 octobre 1907. Actes et documents. Tome 1-3. Ministère des affaires étrangères.

VENEZUELA

El libro amarillo de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela presentado al Congreso nacional en sus sesiones de 1909 por el cuidadano Ministro de relaciones exteriores. xxxviii., 895 p. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores. Mensaje que el General Juan Vicente Gomez, Presidente de la republica presenta al Congreso nacional en 1909. Caracas. 42 p.

PHILIP DE WITT PHAIR.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW

AMERICAN BANANA COMPANY V. UNITED FRUIT COMPANY

Supreme Court of the United States

April 26, 1909

Mr. Justice HOLMES. This is an action brought to recover threefold damages under the Act to Protect Trade against Monopolies. July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 7, 26 Stat. 209, 210. The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint upon motion, as not setting forth a cause of action. 160 Fed. Rep. 184. This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 166 Fed. Rep. 261, and the case then was brought to this court by writ of error.

The allegations of the complaint may be summed up as follows: The plaintiff is an Alabama corporation, organized in 1904. The defendant is a New Jersey corporation, organized in 1899. Long before the plaintiff was formed the defendant, with intent to prevent competition and to control and monopolize the banana trade, bought the property and business of several of its previous competitors, with provision against their resuming the trade, made contracts with others, including a majority of the most important, regulating the quantity to be purchased and the price to be paid, and acquired a controlling amount of stock in still others. For the same purpose it organized a selling company, of which it held the stock, that by agreement sold at fixed prices all the bananas of the combining parties. By this and other means it did monopolize and restrain the trade and maintained unreasonable prices. The defendant being in this ominous attitude, one McConnell in 1903 started a banana plantation in Panama, then part of the United States of Colombia, and began to build a railway (which would afford his only means of export), both in accordance with the laws of the United States of Colombia. He was notified by the defendant that he must either combine or stop. Two months later, it is believed at the defendant's instigation, the governor of Panama recommended to his national government that Costa Rica be allowed to administer the territory through which the railroad was to run, and this although that territory had been awarded

to Colombia under an arbitration agreed to by treaty. The defendant, and afterwards, in September, the government of Costa Rica, it 18 believed by the inducement of the defendant, interfered with McConnell. In November, 1903, Panama revolted and became an independent republic, declaring its boundary to be that settled by the award. In June, 1904, the plaintiff bought out McConnell and went on with the work, as it had a right to do under the laws of Panama. But in July, Costa Rican soldiers and officials, instigated by the defendant, seized a part of the plantation and a cargo of supplies and have held them ever since, and stopped the construction and operation of the plantation and railway. In August one Astua, by ex parte proceedings, got a judgment from a Costa Rica court, declaring the plantation to be his, although, it is alleged, the proceedings were not within the jurisdiction of Costa Rica, and were contrary to its laws and void. Agents of the defendant then bought the lands from Astua. The plaintiff has tried to induce the government of Costa Rica to withdraw its soldiers and also has tried to persuade the United States to interfere, but has been thwarted in both by the defendant and has failed. The government of Costa Rica remained in possession down to the bringing of the suit.

As a result of the defendant's acts the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of the plantation, and the railway, the plantation and supplies have been injured. The defendant also, by outbidding, has driven purchasers out of the market and has compelled producers to come to its terms, and it has prevented the plaintiff from buying for export and sale. This is the substantial damage alleged. There is thrown in a further allegation that the defendant has "sought to injure" the plaintiff's business by offering positions to its employees and by discharging and threatening to discharge persons in its own employ who were stockholders of the plaintiff. But no particular point is made of this. It is contended, however, that even if the main argument fails and the defendant is held not to be answerable for acts depending on the cooperation of the government of Costa Rica for their effect, a wrongful conspiracy resulting in driving the plaintiff out of business is to be gathered from the complaint and that it was entitled to go to trial upon that.

It is obvious that, however stated, the plaintiff's case depends on several rather startling propositions. In the first place the acts causing the damage were done, so far as appears, outside the jurisdiction of the United States and within that of other states. It is surprising to hear it argued that they were governed by the Act of Congress.

No doubt in regions subject to no sovereign, like the high seas, or to no law that civilized countries would recognize as adequate, such countries may treat some relations between their citizens as governed by their own law, and keep to some extent the old notion of personal sovereignty alive. See The Hamilton, 197 U. S. 398, 403; Hart v. Gumpach, L. R. 4 P. C. 439, 463, 464; British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, (1893) A. C. 602. They go further, at times, and declare that they will punish any one, subject or not, who shall do certain things, if they can catch him, as in the case of pirates on the high seas. In cases immediately affecting national interests they may go further still and may make, and, if they get the chance, execute similar threats as to acts done within another recognized jurisdiction. An illustration from our statutes is found with regard to criminal correspondence with foreign governments. Rev. Stat., § 5335. See further, Commonwealth v. Macloon, 101 Mass. 1; The Sussex Peerage, 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 146. And the notion that English statutes bind British subjects everywhere has found expression in modern times and has had some startling applications. Rer v. Sawyer, 2 C. & K. 101; The Zollverei, Swabey, 96, 98. But the general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done. Slater v. Mexican National R. R. Co., 194 U. S. 120, 126. This principle was carried to an extreme in Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374. For another jurisdiction, if it should happen to lay hold of the actor, to treat him according to its own notions rather than those of the place where he did the acts, not only would be unjust, but would be an interference with the authority of another sovereign, contrary to the comity of nations, which the other state concerned justly might resent. Phillipa v. Eyre, L. R. 4 Q. B. 225, 239, L. R. 6 Q. B. 1, 28; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 2d ed. 647. See also Appendix, 724, 726, Note 2, ibid.

Law is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts. But the word commonly is confined to such prophecies or threats when addressed to persons living within the power of the courts. A threat that depends upon the choice of the party affected to bring himself within that power hardly would be called law in the ordinary sense. We do not speak of blockade running by neutrals as unlawful. And the usages of speech correspond to the limit of the attempts of the lawmaker, except in extraordinary cases. It is true that domestic corporations remain always