Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1896-01-10
THE VIRGINIA Law REGISTER.

We have received the Virginia Lgsv
Register for January. The following are
its contents:
I. Conway Robinson, by John Selden of
Washington city, giving good portrait
and excellent sketch of that great Virginia
lawyer; II. The Bicycle in court, by NAL
colin Taylor of Brooklyn. N. Y, showing
that the weight of judicial decisions in this
country, SO far, places the bicycle on the
level of vehicles of ordinary mode of travel.
entitled to the same rights OF the road, and
the riders no more required to dismount in
the face OF an approaching team than is the
driver of a wagon; III. Effect of Devise of
Wife's Separate Estate upon Curtesy; Nv.
Virginia Decisions reported in full-Staun-
ton Perpetual Building and Loan Co. VS..
Haden; T. llow VS.. Southwest Va. Improve
ment Co., and Braxton VS.. Bell; V. Digest
of Recent Virginia Decisions; vi. lIiscel-
laneous Notes; VII. Correspondence;
VIII. For the Juniors; TX. Acts of the
General Assembly.
In the correspondence department is a
letter from Hon. John Randolph Tucker
on the Venezuela Imbroglio, written in re-
Spouse to request Of the editor of the
Register. He advocates the Monroe doc
trine as heartily as does the President. but
he does not agree with him in the applica-
tion Of it to the British Venezuela case.
The settlement in good faith by Great
Britain of its boundary line with Venezus-
la is not a case to which can he applied the
Monroe doctrine. He disagrees with the
President in his treatment OF the incident
and thinks be has called on Great Britain
to do something the United States would
not submit to it called on by Great Britain
to do. He says: s'I recognize, and accord
with, the patriotic impulses of the Presi-
dent and of congress, but am constrained
to say that the United States have no just
ground to present such an issue and in so
menacing form to Great Britain when
they would resent it If presented by Great
Britain to themselves. y
The comments of the Register on the
laws now being passed by the legislature,
form an interesting feature of the work,
and it would be valuable to our legislators
if they would read them. ~
In it's department ;. For the the J JUNIORS the
Register has the following about the use of
proxies at stockholders meetings, which
viii be found OF general interest:
In the absence of express authority in the
charter or bylaws, or in the general law, the
members of a corporation must cast their
votes in persons, and cannot vote by proxy;
and this applies as well to business corpora
lions. with shares of pecuniary value, as to
those in which membership is personal
trust or the result of delectus aersonaratns:
Taylor o. Grss,oold, IA N. J. L. 222 (27 Am
Dec IS, aud note); l Morawetz Corp. cd
ed 4S6;1 Thomp. Corp. 1876. And many of
the courts hold that such authority cannot be
conferred by bylaw: Thomp. Corp. 1871.
1t is provided by statute in Virginia that
sin meeting of stockholders, each stock
holder may, IN person or dy proay, give one
vote tor each share of stock held by him in the
same right; Va. Code of 1887, sec. 11l6. This
language seems clearly to limit the right to
members of those corporations which have a
capital stock. and not to extend the privilege
of voting by proxy to the members Of those
corporations which have no capital stock,
and therefore no stockholders.