We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
The lawyers in every country have been kept busy during the last century in developing a special body of law, first for the railroad, then for the telegraph, and then for the telephone. They must soon address themselves to a new task of the same nature. The air-ship has at last been brought to a state of efficiency which, while far short of perfection, takes it out of the field of mere experiment and seems to assure its speedy employment in the transportation for hire of passengers and goods. Other uses of less worth to the community or of absolute detriment are equally certain. It will be seized as an aid in evil-doing by smugglers, spies, burglars; by criminals of all sorts flying from justice; and for illicit trade of every kind. It flies over the borders of one sovereignty into those of another as swiftly and irresponsibly as a bird. How far must it be the subject of public regulation? How fully can the precepts of private law which have been found applicable to other conditions and relations be applied to those resulting from the introduction of this new agency of power ? Can there be one world-law for the high air, as there is one world-law for the high sea ? Can such rules as those of general average and maritime lien be applied by analogy to aerial navigation ?“
1 See discussion of this point by Meyer, , Du Domaine aérieu et de sa Réglement ation juridique. Clunet’s Journal, 1909, p. 687 Google Scholar.
2 Inst. I, 1, de rerum divisione, § 1; Dig. I, 8, de divisione rerum, § 2, 1.
3 Grünwald would divide the air into a lower zone, in which there are rights of property, and a higher, where there are only spheres of influence. See Journal de Droit Privé, 1908, No. 7–9, 1058.
4 Baldwin’s American Railroad Law, p. 28.
5 Page 4.
6 The new Swiss Civil Code, § 667, has substantially the same provisions.
7 Inst. IV, 3, de lege Aquilia; 5, de obligationibus quœ quasi ex delicto nasountur; Dig. IX, 3, de his qui effuderint vel dejecerint.
8 Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wallace’s Reports, 357, 383.
9 Dig. IX, 2, ad legem A Aguilian, 27; 3.
10 Guille v. Swan, 19 Johnson’s New York Reports, 381.
11 Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R. 3 H. of L. 330.
12 Wing v. London General Omnibus Co., Law Journal for July 24, 1909, Vol. XLIV, 460.
13 Pickering v. Rudd, 4 Campbell’s Reports, 219; 1 Starkie’s Reports, 56.
14 Such a policy would be in accord with the general trend of our State legislation with respect to interstate automobile trips. The license from one State is commonly recognized in another as sufficient for a certain number of hours or days. Air-ship voyages will always be short.
15 Regina v. Dudley, (L. R.) 14 Q. B. D. 273.
16 See Morris v. Piatt, 32 Conn. Reports, 75.
17 Scott, The Hague Peace Conferences, Vol. I, pp. 652, 6S3 ;Vol. II, p. 527, n.
