establishment with many other undertakers whom we invited there for the purpose of discussing scientific problems in embalming, these operations having been performed by Professor H. S. Eckels, of Philadelphia, and Professor Chas. A. Genung. Waterloo, New York. The body that was demonstrated upon was of about the same size and general condition as was the body of William M. Rice, according to the description given by the witnesses who have testified in this case. With this subject. the fluid was injected into the right brachial artery, the lungs and heart were exposed to view, and I carefully observed the filling of the blood vessels as the injection continued. I also saw that the tissues of the lungs became expanded by the further injection of the fluid and made close observation upon the appearance of the lungs after the injection of a half a gallon of fluid into the brachial artery and found that a congestion of blood in the lungs had been produced and that upon a close examination the odor of embalming fluid was readily perceptible therein.

This operation was before a large audience of practical embalmers. It was a complete demonstration of an actual fact. that the fluid did enter and permeate the lungs and was not a matter of opinion, or that permitted an expression of opinion. It was a demonstration.

"I believe there are over twenty thousand undertakers and embalmers in the United States who are accustomd to doing arterial embalming, and who depend upon the preservation of the lung tissue, as well as the preservation of all the body, upon the fluid injected into the brachial artery. I assure you that we have found this to be so, in bodies that I have prepared for burial in our City and for shipment to other parts of the world, and I have received many testimonials as to the perfect preservation and good appearance and condition of these bodies.

FRANK E. CAMPBELL.”

This testimony has saved Patrick's neck, but would it not be very appropriate to have an occasional hanging of "expert witnesses" who are specially distinguished in their profession, and who are always cock-sure?

PATENT MEDICINES FOR PUBLIC EVILS.

There is a good deal of vicious nonsense just now in the public press, often emenating from high sources, in regard to reforming our criminal procedure, so as to make the conviction of criminals more swift and certain.

For instance, so responsible a source as the President himself, recommends in his last message that "No judgment shall be set aside or a new trial granted in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper ad, mission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure unless, in the opinion of the court to which the application is made, after an examination of the entire cause; it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice."

On a par with propositions of this character are some deadletter provisions of the statutes of this State, which enact, for example, that

"No action shall abate for want of form, where the declaration sets forth sufficient matter of substance for the court to proceed upon the merits of the case."

And again, "The court shall not regard any defect or imperfection in the declaration or pleadings, unless there be omitted something so essential to the action or defense that judginent according to law and the very right of the cause cannot be given."

In the name of common sense, we ask when was it, before the above statutes were seriously incorporated in the Code, that the courts required anything more specific in pleadings than that "judgment according to law and the very right of the cause could be given?"

Or what other object has ever been in view than that pleadings should present such a case that "judgment according to the law and the very right of a cause could be given?

What difference, forsooth, did these statutes make in the proceedure of our courts?

And if President Roosevelt's suggestion should be enacted into law by the congress and every legislature in the land, what change would it effect in our civil or criminal procedure? If, for example, there was a "misdirection of the jury," or "improper admission or rejection of evidence," or "error as to any matter of pleading or procedure," what court would regard it un

less it "affirmatively appeared that the error complained of had resulted in a miscarriage of justice."

But it would nevertheless appear to any reasonable court that if any such things had occurred as the President enumerates, there would be a miscarriage of justice, and any court would be bound to so conclude, because to do otherwise would be saying that he could be convicted contrary to law-it would be giving into the hands of a judge a one man power that is scarcely exercised by any autocrat on the face of the earth today.

It was well and eloquently said by Secretary Root in a recent address, and he spoke as a lawyer, that, "There are comparatively few who appreciate the value and importance of a rule, as distinguished from justice in a particular case. The great rules of right established in our consitutions were of impersonal and impartial origin."

"They can be maintained only by a people who believe in them." "To preserve and foster such a living faith of the people in the supreme value of the great impersonal rules of right which underlie our system of law, is the highest and ever-present duty of the American lawyer."

Evidently his chief does not appreciate the value and importance of these great values of right, and there are many lesser lights in the same pew. As Secretary Root says the path of departure from true principles always proceeds by gradual and unobtrusive divergence. Let these quack remedies for the defaults of our criminal procedure be accepted and it opens the sluice gate for a flood of quackery that may undermine the very foundation of our criminal jurisprudence.

No one will deny that our criminal law is lamely and languidly administered. But it is not the fault of the law nor our system of criminal jurisprudence. It is the fault of the judges who administer it. Until we can put men who have the ability and the courage to hold a criminal trial down to its legal and reasonable limitations, all the modifications that can be made by legislation in criminal procedure will not help the matter. As one has said: "The first great fundamental right of everyone accused of crime is a fair and impartial trial, and where this is denied liberty dies, personal security perishes from the earth and all human rights are crucified. It matters not how henious the crime, or how guilty the criminal, this first great right of man must be preserved. It may sometimes prove the

means of escape for the guilty, but it is the only protection of the innocent." In the words of the Roman Cæsar, "If it be only necessary to accuse, what will become of the innocent?"

This inalienable right cannot be justly denied to any man, and should be accorded to Judas Iscariot if he were called before an earthly tribunal to answer for his betrayal of the Master. There is nothing more revolting to the heart than the punishment of the innocent. To prevent this all constitutions and all systems of laws provide for the careful judicial investigation of all criminal accusations. And this demand will not yield even to the adverse suggestion of the President of the United States.

A PEACEFUL PROGRESS

It is easy to believe in the thing want. We have no tolerance for war. We are optomistic about all plans for a permanent peace. We have no tolerance for war-We have no tolerance for the policy of multiplying the implements of war and making constant preparation for war, and educating the school children for war as the means which makes for peace.

We believe we are making progress toward a genuine civilization, from which the savage will be entirely eliminated. We have high hopes for the next peace conference. The whole civilized world is looking forward to it. It only remains to fix the date.

The government of the Netherlands has signified its desire that the next Hague peace conference be held the latter part of next May or early in June, and it is regarded as quite certain that that date will be fixed.

Holland is very anxious that the question of the date be settled soon, that proper arrangements for the affair may be made It was originally designed that the second conference should be held in July, but for several reasons, chiefly the objection of the government here to the proposed date because of its conflict with the Pan-American conference in Rio de Janeiro; there was an indefinite postponement.

Several months ago the Russian government sent out a tentative program to the Powers which will participate in the next conference, and since then this has been the subject of general discussion among nations. It is said now that the program is nearing completion.

SUGGESTIVE FIGURES.

There are some very suggestive figures in the report of C. C. Haddox, the warden of our State penitentiary. We take from the report the following:

The ratio of convicts in 1890 was 1 to 2,560 of population; in 1900, 1 to, each 2,018 of population, and in 1906 is estimated to be 1 to each 1,338 of population. These ratios are not par ticularly valuable, however, for the reason that they are made to apply to the whole state, whereas the bulk of the convict population is obtained from a fe wcounties. The ration of convicts to the total population of Nicholas county (no-license) is 1 to each 6,500 of population, while its neighbor county of Fayette (license) is 1 to each 277 of population. The ratio in Preston county is 1 to each 8,330 population, while in McDowell county it is 1 to each 233. In Barbour the ratio is 1 to 18,000, while in Mercer it is 1 to 605.

The population of the five counties furnishing over one-half of the criminal population, was 139,812. The population of the other fifty counties furnishing less than half the criminals, was 818,988.

Of the 828 State convicts, Fayette county contributed 130, McDowell county 107, Kanawha county 95, Mercer county 43, and Mingo county 40, or a total for the five counties of 415, against a total of 413 from the other fifty counties of the State.

The counties of Barbour, Doddridge, Hancock, Hardy, Jackson, Jefferson, Monroe, Morgan, Nicholas, Preston, Pleasants, Taylor, and Webster combined furnished but 20 convicts, or just one-half of what Mingo county alone furnished.

The population of these thirteen counties in 1900 was 169,600, while the population of Mingo county at the last census was but 11,359, or one-fifteenth as much.

Fully 80 per cent of the crimes committed in these regions are murder and kindred crimes, the direct result of the indiscriminate, unregulated sale of adulterated liquors and cocaine, coupled with an equally unregulated and unrestrained sale and use of firearms. The fair name of West Virginia is thus unnecessarily besmirched, and her criminal population unduly augumented.

The population of Nebraska was practically the same as, or greater than West Virginia at the last census, but her convict population is but 330, against our convict population of 828.

Out of an appropriation for criminal charges of $150,000 for 1903, these five counties absorbed $62,159.22, and from the appropriation of $130,000 for 1904, they obtained $68,254.37.