"I am in favor of a service pension bill because the percentage of ex-soldiers to the population in the West is greater than that in the East; for a similar reason I favor the free coinage of silver, because the farmers of the West are in debt to the capitalists of the East."

This is the reply given by a member of Congress representing a certain Western district when interrogated concerning the motives for his support of pending legislative measures. It is a well known fact that the chief demand for the free coinage of silver emanates from the people of the Western States, and whether or not the frank explanation just quoted is typical for representatives in Congress, it certainly forms the foundation for the reasoning usually indulged in to justify such a law. From this naturally arises the question: Are mortgage debts unusually burdensome to the farmers; and if so, to what extent would a law enacting free coinage of silver remedy their condition?

The fact of the prevalence of farm mortgages in the West, though the reports have probably been considerably exaggerated, may be accepted as the real basis for the present widespread monetary complaints. But the mere existence of farm mortgages does not necessarily justify complaint. The causes and circumstances which led to their incurrence must be examined before we can judge whether there exists an aggravating burden. Viewed from the standpoint of their creation, farm mortgages fall into at least three classes. First, we have mortgages which arise when the purchaser makes only a partial payment for his land and binds the whole property as security for the ulti

mate extinction of the debt. Agriculture under modern conditions requires a much greater command of capital than in former years; a farm of too small dimensions prevents economies necessary for successful competition in the markets of to-day. If this capital is secured by purchasing land subject to mortgage, the creditor must in all fairness be regarded in the rôle of a silent partner in the enterprise, to whom the debtor guarantees a fixed rate of income in the confidence that he himself will come out with a still greater profit. The debtor takes upon himself the risk of paying the stipulated interest in the firm expectation of gaining by the transaction; if he fails through his own mistakes, he has only himself to blame.

The same necessity of the nineteenthcentury farmer for considerable capital occasions the second class of mortgages. In this case, however, the obligation represents not so much a partial ownership of the land, as rather a debt entered into in order to make desirable improvements. The money may be invested in new buildings, improved machinery, additional stock, permanent drainage; in each instance the transaction resembles every ordinary commercial enterprise where a merchant borrows capital in order to begin an undertaking that promises great returns. The responsibility of a bad investment rests upon himself alone.

Mortgages may arise in still a third manner. They may be necessitated by causes entirely beyond the control of the farmer. Among these causes are fire, storm, grasshoppers, and drouth, resulting in destruction of capital or in

crop failure. The burdens of debt when thus incurred are felt most intensely. Notwithstanding laws against usury, the borrower is exposed to the utmost exactions of the money lenders. If outcry against the burdens of debt is at all justifiable, it can only be acknowledged for this one class of debtors. On the other hand, mortgages given to renew or to pay off other debts are to be classified according to the causes which have prevented the due repayment of the preceding indebtedness; they may, under certain circumstances, come under our third classification.

What ratio the last group of mortgage debts bears to the whole number of farm mortgages is not statistically known, but it may be assumed that of the three it is not the most numerous. Now, even if the farmers be unduly burdened, should the Federal government undertake to relieve them? Does the problem not resolve itself into a demand that the government insure the farmers against misfortune, or lack of fortune, however occasioned? The most oppressive forms of indebtedness are often forced upon the debtors by reason of their own want of foresight when they could easily have fortified themselves against loss. There are now not only fire, tornado, and accident insurance companies, but also corporations for the insurance of horses and cattle; and while I have yet to hear of any crop insurance company, it is not improbable that the near future will bring forth such an association. A person may, upon economic grounds, favor the compulsory insurance of workingmen with the expense borne in part by the government without seeing the justice of any one class. calling upon the whole people to bear burdens of indebtedness which they have called down upon themselves.

The present agitation for free coinage of

silver, as far as it is supported by the farmers of the West, is little more than the repetition of the old greenback clamor that the farmer is the special ward of the nation and that the government should relieve him in whole or in part of his self-incurred indebtedness. Only the most rampant fiatists go to the extreme of demanding the direct distribution of money, or what is equivalent to the same thing, loans by the government at two per cent. interest upon security of agricultural land and products. The general view is that free coinage would bring into circulation through natural channels a large amount of silver, thus increasing the quantity of money outstanding and thereby raising prices, decreasing the interest burden and lowering the real value of existing debts. Are these expectations of the result of the enactment of a freecoinage law reasonable or well grounded?

It is not necessary here to trace again the successive steps which would, in all probability, follow such an event. It is likely that an immediate and violent contraction of the currency would precede a gradual expansion, upon a silver basis. How long the process would take is a matter of speculation. We may make, for mere argument, an assumption that it will take place and that in a comparatively short period of time; and we may then ask what will be the resulting condition of the owner of a mortgaged farm. The depreciation of the currency would undoubtedly lighten the existing interest burden, but would it bring the debtor much nearer to the repayment of the debt? How is the farmer to obtain money? While currency inflation raises the prices of his products it will, in time, also raise the prices of what he purchases, thus leaving the margin for savings but slightly disturbed. The only fund which would be increased and at the

same time be available for paying off the mortgage would be that secured from the sale of products which had been held over during the rise in prices. That many of the owners of mortgaged farms hold on hand for any period of time products at all approximating their debt in value, is unreasonable to suppose. Southern planters sell their cotton before it is planted, while Western farmers are often compelled to dispose of their crops before harvesting. Then, too, the cost of every crop succeeding the state of completed inflation would be increased in about the same ratio as the market price of the product, and leave the principal of the mortgage debt almost as far from extinction as before.

If free coinage of silver raises the prices of all permanent capital there will be but one sure way of cancelling the mortgage. The property itself may be sold at its in

creased price, the debt paid, and the difference pocketed. But that would avail the farmer little; in purchasing another piece of land he would lose all that he had gained. If he bought again on credit, the new creditor would either stipulate for repayment in gold or cover his risk by requiring a higher rate of interest. This is by no means what the farmer wishes. He does not desire to dispose of his landed property; what he wants, is to keep his farm while escaping the burden of debt. The extent to which the free coinage of silver would assist him in accomplishing his purpose, if it would assist him at all, has been greatly exaggerated. The only legitimate way for a farmer to relieve himself of a mortgage debt without giving up his farm, is to secure the money for repayment by disposing of either his labor or the products of his labor and capital.

WIILLIAM M. McQUAID,

J. WILLIAM JOHNSON, YALE.

HUBERT L. WHITE, Cornell,

FREDERICK A. HENRY, ANN ARBOR,

J. FRANCIS TUCKER, NEw York University, JOHN B. MINOR, Jr., UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, ELDON J. CASSIDY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, JAMES A. HYNDS, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY,

GEORGE S. ADAMS, CINcinnati Law School, GEORGE C. HITCHCOCK, ST. LOUIS LAW SCHOOL, HENRY H. FERRELL, HOWARD UNIversity,

WILLIAM D. NIPER, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, RICHARD BELCHER, Hastings College of Law. WILLIAM B. HENDERSON, WASH'TON AND LEE Univ. F.A. HOPKINS, GEORGETOWN COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL. ROLAND A. RUSSELL, BLOOMINGTON LAW SCHOOL.

EDITORIAL.

THE lecture of Frederic R. Coudert on "Attorney and Client," delivered before the students of Columbia Law School, appears in this number and will amply repay careful reading.

IT is our sad office to note the death of Morris M. Budlong, of the Class of '68 Columbia Law School, and since a member of the New York City bar.

More fitting words than the tribute of Dr. Theodore W. Dwight cannot be spoken: "There have been few students that I have met in whom I took so much interest as in

mental powers, even in his temperament, sweet in his disposition, most kindly in his feelings, and of the strictest integrity. One could not know him well without loving as well as respecting him. He considered. the law as based on great principles and not as a mere haphazard collection of decisions, and scorned in his practice anything that resembled trickery or deception. His ways were frank and open and his manners engaging. In every aspect of his professional life he exhibited himself as a model lawyer and a sterling and noble man." To win such a tribute from Dr. Dwight may well be the highest ambition of any law student or lawyer.

THERE is something of ill-foreboding in the remarks of Mr. Coudert in his recent address on "Attorney and Client," something that gives a chill to our legal enthusiasm, when he says, "I can more easily imagine an attorney without a client, than a client without an attorney." When we stop to think what and all that that means—an attorney without a client-we hesitate in our search for legal relics found in Atkins or Vesey; old English cases lose their alluring color, and we pause in our enthusiastic labors to learn what the law was three hundred years ago. The bachelor of laws, even after winning a degree by passing an examination. which Lord Hardwicke might have given. for admission to the bar, may only enter upon the painful reality of being "an attorney without a client."

It is a sad sight to see a parent without a child, sadder still to see a husband without a wife, but how infinitely more distressing to see an attorney without a client.

AT the recent banquet of the Alumni of Columbia College, President Low laid be

fore the association his plan to remove Columbia College to more adequate quar

ters.

The present building and grounds being far from sufficient to accommodate the students of the University, it is proposed to buy property and erect suitable buildings for college halls, and dormitories, with ample room for athletic grounds, on the upper end of Manhattan Island, where a permanent location can be secured. Situated as it is at present, there is or can be no college life or spirit at Columbia, and it can send forth no enthusiastic alumni whose pride is in their Alma Mater; and that the institution may broaden and extend its influence and strength, this move seems dictated by necessity. There could be no question as to the wisdom of the plan were Columbia a school of philosophy and letters. Indeed, in such a case, the farther removed from the attractions and allurements of the metropolis the better. It might be better were it removed as far as New Haven or Princeton. If it is the policy of the College to build up a school of arts, they undoubtedly need more buildings and more grounds. But when we consider the case of the Law and Medical departments, forming a very large part of the University, the advisability of the scheme is not so apparent.

The very

reason that New York City is the most advantageous place for the study of law is the opportunity there given the student to be in touch with the best active practice while pursuing his studies. A removal of the Law School would render office work and attendance at courts almost impracticable, and would be another demoral

izing move. From the Law-School point of view, we do not see the necessity of a change. The law students are not college boys whose pride is in their athletic crews, teams, banjo clubs, etc., but they are supposed to be men beginning the work by which they expect to gain their living, and it is imperative that their departments be located in convenient quarters, easily accessible to offices and the courts.

PERSONAL.

Prof. Kirchwey, who has been seriously ill and unable to meet his classes for some time, was able to resume work last Monday.

The President has announced that the following course of lectures will be delivered at the College: Frederick R. Coudert, January 15th, "Attorney and Client"; Austin G. Fox, February 12th, "Jury Trials"; William B. Hornblower, February 26th, "Appellate Courts"; E. Ellery Anderson, March 11th, "The Lawyer as a Citizen"; C. C. Beaman, March 18th, "The Geneva Arbitration."

Mr. Robert Crittenden Newton, formerly of the class of '92 Law, was married to Miss Mary Agnes Rend, of Chicago, on January 5, 1892. The ceremony was conducted by Archbishop Feehan in his private chapel, and the large reception which followed at the home of bride's parents, was the event of Chicago's social season. Mr. Newton will be remembered as one of the brightest and most popular men ever in Columbia Law School.