CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND THE TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE

The authority of legislatures and courts in criminal matters is supposed to be circumscribed by the territorial boundaries of the state. That as a general proposition the criminal law of a state has no extraterritorial operation, few lawyers would question. But an uncritical acceptance of the proposition is not warranted. Merely to assert that the authority of a state over crime ends at its territorial boundaries is of no help in settling jurisdictional questions in complicated crime situations in which the constituent acts of the crime occur in different states. Modern criminals have little concern for political boundaries except as such boundaries are an aid in effecting a criminal purpose. This suggests that perhaps the state, on the other hand, can no longer afford to observe such a strict punctilio as heretofore in the application of the territorial principle of criminal jurisdiction

THE PROPOSED FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The recently published Preliminary Draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is now before the bench and bar for discussion. The rules proposed are, of course, tentative. Following a procedure similar to that adopted in the case of the civil rules a few years ago, they have been printed and distributed by the Advisory Committee at this stage for the purpose of obtaining criticisms and suggestions. Some of the rules merely restate existing law as provided by statute or adopted by general agreement in judicial decisions. Others work substantial procedural changes. How is the product to be judged

SOME PROBLEMS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS

There has been much discussion through the years about the evils of monopoly, monopolistic practices, and unreasonable restraints of trade. We have always paid lip service to the ideal of free competition. But we have done little in this country to cope with these evils. We have done little to make our competitive ideal effective