COLUMBIA LAW TIMES. most delicate subject-the secret of the 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, Sr. 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 Austen G. Fox, Esq., on "Jury Trial," which is contained in this number, will be found of rare interest. Mr. Fox is a Harvard Law School graduate, who has attained an enviable name as a successful trial lawyer in New York City. He is especially sought out to present the claims of corporations to juries a very difficult task, which requires a high degree of skill and tact. One loses much of the strength of this article by not being able to watch and listen to the speaker. there is much for the student, and lawyer as well, to learn from this treatment of that But power of the lawyer over the twelve men in the jury-box. Mr. Noble, who writes on "Ratification," is a St. John's College man, now in the middle class of Columbia Law School; and Mr. Ames, our other contributor to this number, is a graduate of Columbia, and one of the founders of the LAW TIMES. THE Annual Register and Circular of Information of the School of Law has just been issued. The register shows 63 seniors and a total of 316 students, of whom 108 are college graduates, representing 41 colleges. Several changes have been made in the assignment of lectures and some new courses added. Professor Cumming has prepared a collection of cases of private corporations, which will be employed. Professor Kirchwey will lecture on wills and administration, and a course of lectures on insurance will be given by Mr. George Richards, LL.B. VERY startling and pessimistic were the views views expressed by Melville M. Bigelow, a Harvard law professor, at the recent meeting of the New York State Bar Association, when he declared that for years there had been a manifest lowering of public respect for the law, caused by the tendency of judges and lawyers to follow precedents and indulge in hair-splitting, and suggested the abolition of the present legal system in order that we may have clear field on which to erect the structure of ideal jurisprudence. SPEAKING of the responsibilities of our chosen profession, Hon. J. M. Riggs, President of the Illinois State Bar Association, in his address to that association said: "The laws and the administration thereof must command the respect and confi dence of all well-disposed citizens, and demand and enforce obedience from those evilly inclined. As new conditions in business and other relations arise, the proper changes to meet and provide for them should be made. Those who devote their lives to the study and practice of the law are best qualified to discover defects in existing laws and devise corrections, and also to provide new laws for new conditions. Aside from the sacred office there is no other calling where better opportunities appear for doing good and leaving results which shall have beneficent effects for all time. The nature of our calling renders us, more than any other equal number of citizens, responsible for what the government ought to do that is yet undone for whatever in legislation is wrong or inadequate. In addition to the responsibility arising from the nature of our profession, so many lawyers take public place, that we, as a body, may be justly held to a large degree of responsibility on that account." As to the requirements for admission to the bar the same speaker continued: A good lawyer is a minister of justice, and only those who are prepared, morally and educationally, to be such, should be admitted to the privileges and responsibilities of the fraternity. The standard of legal education should be elevated. In my humble judgment three years are little enough time in which to prepare for admission to the bar. One year of that time should be spent in the office of a lawyer, who is not only licensed, but in actual practice. The other two years should be spent in a law school, which should not only be "regularly established," but should have a full and thorough course of legal studies." Scourging the law for its delay, he de clared that the average length of a lawsuit in different States varied from one year and a half to six years, and strongly indorsed the words of David Dudley Field: "We have quite forgotten the ancient maxim, ‘bis dat qui cito dat,' although it is as applicable to the awards of justice as to the gifts of beneficence. There is no reason, in the nature of things, why any lawsuit, if the witnesses are within the jurisdiction, should not be determined within a year from its beginning. When a litigation has run through the four seasons it has run long enough. Twelve months are as long as an American citizen should be obliged to wait for justice, and I think it should be deemed a fundamental precept to all law givers and ministers of the law, that the judicial force be so arranged and the methods of procedure so contrived, that the end of the year from the beginning of the process shall see the end of it." LEGAL journalism, blending two of the influential professions, seems daily gaining in influence and popularity. Journals and magazines for every calling, trade, and industry flourished long before the conservative profession opened its doors to the legal journalist. Since gaining a foothold, one is astonished in reading of the development of this profession, as told by Irving Browne in his recent article on this subject. But little over twenty years since there were only three in existence; to-day there are one hundred and twelve. "The legal journalist," says Mr. Browne, "has two things for which he ought to feel devoutly thankful: first, that he is not a political editor, condemned to skip and caper at the crack of the party whip and advocate measures or means from which at times his conscience or his reason must revolt; second, that he has the unique privilege of addressing the most learned, the most critical, the most sensible class of newspaper readers with whom nonsense or cant or demagoguism will not find acceptance, and whose watchfulness and exactions keep him always on his metal and bound to do his best. . . . The ideal legal journalist is one who, having practised and knowing the law, is free from professional influences and excitements; occupying the post of critic and umpire; looking on the strifes of the forum with keen interest, but with a feeling of half amusement at the zeal and cock-sureness of the combatants, none of whom can see when he is wrong nor why he is beaten; not even subject, like the judge, to the appeals of rhetoric, passion, or personal magnetism; with not a cent of pecuniary interest; sitting in his sanctum in quiet and composure, studying without confusion or haste, viewing the subject in the cold light of reason-by virtue of all these conditions, other things being equal, he is the most impartial of legal observers, and his opinion ought to be the most respectable." And quoting from Mr. Lecky : "An important effect of these journals has been to evoke a large amount of literary talent in the lawyer class. Men whose professional duties would render it impossible for them to write long books are quite capable of treating philosophical subjects in the form of short essays, and have in fact become conspicuous in these periodicals. There has seldom, I think, before been a time when lawyers occupied such an important literary position as at present, or when legal ways of thinking had so great an influence over English philosophy, and this fact has been eminently favorable to the progress of utilitarianism." These thoughts and opinions contrast happily with the disappointing picture of our profession as sketched by Mr. Bigelow. JURISDICTION OF U. S. COURts. I.Wharton: "Criminal Law," pp. 252-276. People vs. Godfrey, 17 Johnson, 225. In re Neagle, 135 U. S., 1. F. L. R. R. Co. vs. Lowe, 114 U. S., 525. Cummonwealth vs. Manchester, 152 Mass., 230. JURISDICTION OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS: Cooley on Constitutional Law, pp. 1202, 133-5. CRIMINAL INTENT: Harris on Criminal Law, ch. 4. May on Criminal Law, secs. 12-24. Bishop on Criminal Law, secs. 356-362. IV. Blackstone, 20-26. N. Y. Penal Code, §§ 17-27. Flannigan vs. People, 40 Am. Rep., 556. Fed. Rep., 657, Power of U. S. courts to punish crimes. 92 Pa., 372, Concurrent Jurisdiction. PUNISHMENT BY BOTH U. S. AND STATE COURTS. Abbot vs. State, 75 N. Y., 602. Dows vs. National Ex. Bank, 91 U.S., 618. Emery vs. Irving Nat. Bank, 25 Oh. St., 360. Bank of Rochester vs. Jones, 4 Comst., 497. Bonner vs. Mark, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.),376. Phil., etc., Ry. vs. Wireman, 88 Pa. St., 264. First Nat. Bank vs. Crocker, 111 Mass., 163. First Nat. Bank vs. Shaw, 61 N. Y., 283. Jones vs. Scott, 6 Porter (Ala.), 138. Commercial Bank vs. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y., 250. City Bank vs. R. W. & O. Ry., 44 N. Y., 136. People vs. Smith, 69 N. Y., 179. Book III., Chap. II., § 6. Holden vs. Crafts, 4 E. D. Smith, 490. Noltner vs. Dolan, 108 Ind., 500. Brooks vs. Martin, 2 Wal., 70. Snell vs. Pells, 113 Ill., 145. Book III., Chap. III., § 1 and 2. Collins vs. Sullivan, 135 Mass., 461. People vs. The Township, etc., 11 Mich., 222. Pegrum vs. Ry., 84 N. C., 697. Fox vs. Magreth, 2 Brown Ch. C., 420. 25 Upp. Can., Q. B., 509. Book III., Chap. III., § 3 and 4. Kramer vs. Winslow, 130 Pa. St., 484. Inglehart vs. Hotel Co., 32 Hun, 377. Book III., Chap. III., § 5 and 6. Williams vs. Reed, 3 Mason, 404. |