*

pressed their desire to "welcome her as one of our members." The court, either imbued with that spirit of progress so prevalent in the West, or out of regard to the feelings of the committee, granted the application, and Mrs. Arabella was duly inducted into the profession. It is incidentally related that the husband of the lady was admitted at the same time, and it may be fairly presumed that the "shingle" of "Arabella A. Mansfield and husband," has been long since flung to the breeze. It would seem that the guardians and rulers of the Columbia College Law School of New York, are less chivalrous and courteous to the fair sex. A lady recently complained through the columns of the Tribune that she had procured her testimonials and fees, and presented her application for admission to the junior class in that school; but that she was informed that person, as used in their catalogue, meant man, therefore, that she could not enter, being a woman. The lady's logic is rather formidable. It seems that the catalogue of the law school says that "any person of good moral character * may be admitted." Also, that "the design of the law school is to afford a complete course of legal education for gentlemen intended for the bar inany of the United States." On this the fair communicant predicates the following: "The last clause of the last quotation would seem at first sight to exclude women; but when it is remembered that words change their meaning in the progress of a language, and with the changes of the times, and as the progress of the age has been such that women are now admitted to the bar in some of the United States, it follows that the phrase ‘gentlemen intended for the bar has lost its exclusive significance, is a relic of a past epoch, and can only be interpreted now, in the light of the present facts, to mean, 'those (men or women) intended for the bar." If the popular theory that it is the business of the profession to lie-be true, which we have reason to doubt, there is one qualification possessed by ladies which would eminently fit them for the practice, provided the Rev. Mr. Cowen, of Boston, who, by the way, is an ardent champion of woman's rights, and should know, is to be relied on. That gentleman, in an address before the recent Woman's Suffrage Convention, at Cleveland, said "women are not as truthful as men." He had seen "young women lie with a steadfastness and imperturbability unapproachable by young men." We have never regarded lying as a female accomplishment, nor an essential qualification for the legal profession, but if our views are incorrect, it may become necessary for the gentlemen of the profession, as a matter of self-preservation, to set their faces against

--

the ladies in their efforts to gain admission to the bar. -Senator Carpenter, of Wisconsin, has introduced into the Senate a bill to increase the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to $12,000 per annum, and that of the Associate Justices to $10,000. We believe that every fair-minded lawyer will approve of the bill, and it is to be hoped it will become a law. The present salary of the Chief Justice is $6,500, and of the Associates $6,000-compensations in no wise adequate to the abilities and attainments demanded by the positions. England pays her Lord Chancellor £10,000, or nearly $50,000, per annum, and her Lords Justices of the Court of

Appeal £6,000 each, or nearly three times the salary proposed by this bill for the highest judicial officer in the country. Even her Commissioners in Bankruptcy and Masters in Lunacy receive nearly double the salary of any United States Judge, and receive it in gold. The position of Judge of the Supreme Court is one of great importance, and demands the highest abilities and the most varied attainments-qualities that in the ordinary walks of the legal profession would bring to their possessor double or treble the remuneration of our present Chief Justice. It is no uncommon thing for an insurance or railroad company to pay ten or fifteen thousand dollars salary to a president; and it is in accordance with the "eternal fitness of things" that those who serve their country in a position of the highest responsibility should receive an equally liberal remuneration.

—A “Lawyer's Congress,” attended by some of the most eminent jurists of Germany, was held, a few weeks since, at Heidelberg, and passed several resolutions on important social and judicial questions. Among these were the following: 1. "Civil marriages should be recognized as a necessary principle of the relation between Church and State in the whole of Germany; and the State should make no objection to the marriage of persons of different religions." This was proposed by Dr. Gneist, and passed against a minority of one only. 2. "That government sanction should not be required for the formation of joint stock companies or other associations, but that the liability of each member of such company should be unlimited." 3. "A written document acknowledging a debt should be taken as sufficient proof of such debt, independently of the circumstances under which such debt was incurred." 4. "As nearly all the objects of punishment are more effectually obtained by solitary confinement than by any other system of imprisonment, such confinement should be recognized by law as the regulated mode of executing sentences which involve the loss of liberty; exceptions to this rule might be made when necessary, either by the judge or the governor of the prison." This resolution was passed almost unanimously.

- Dickens tells us, in one of his Christmas stories, of the performances of the ghost of a murdered man that would not lie quiet in its grave like a well behaved Christian ghost, but persisted in revisiting the 'glimpses of the moon" to aid the prosecuting attorney in bringing the murderer to justice. While in a murder trial a ghostly interference of this kind may be tolerated, we doubt very much whether in the

ordinary litigations and trials it would tend to advance the cause of justice or conduce to the well-being of society. We, therefore, have to regret the position which the Philadelphia spirits seem to have taken in the matter. The story comes to us from that city that Judge PIERCE recently sent a jury out to deliberate, and received a note from the jury room the next day stating that all had agreed except one, who had communed with the spirits, and had been told by them that the law bearing on the case was illegal. The jury asked to be discharged, and the request was finally granted. If it is to become fashionable for spirits thus to usurp the functions of the judges, it may become necessary to add another to the present causes of

we have heard and seen expressed on the subject, we should say that it was very like that question which gave rise to the celebrated mot of Earl Russell, "That only two men ever did understand this question, another gentleman and I. The other gentleman is dead. He explained it to me, but I have forgotten all about it."

The question arises from the doubt, as to when the new Judiciary article is to take effect. The last section of the proposed Constitution provided, that the Constitution should be in force from and including the 1st day of January next after its adoption by the people. When the legislature made provision for submitting the Judiciary article separately, they declared as follows:

"If a majority of the ballots indorsed 'Constitution -Judiciary' shall contain on the inside the words, 'For the amended Judiciary article,' then the Judiciary article proposed by said Convention shall be deemed to be adopted by the people, and shall be the sixth article of the Constitution of this state."

If this language were to be literally construed, it would seem that the Judiciary article took effect as soon as adopted, that is, as soon as the State canvassers had declared the result of the vote on it. Again, it is contended, that, inasmuch as it was provided that the proposed Constitution should take effect from January first, therefore, the Judiciary article must take effect from the same time. Whatever may have been the intention of the legislature, it will be rather difficult to sustain this argument by strict construction. The clause providing when the Constitution should take effect was rejected by the people. How then is it to govern as to the Judiciary article? But supposing it to go into effect on the first, have we any Court of Appeals, properly so called? The twentyfourth section of the new Judiciary article is in these words:

"Section 24. The first election of Judges of the Court of Appeals, and of the three additional Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York, shall take place on such day, between the first Tuesday of April and the second Tuesday in June, next after the adoption of this article, as may be provided by law. The Court of Appeals, the Commissioners of Appeals, and the additional Judges of the said Court of Common Pleas, shall respectively enter upon their duties on the first Monday of July thereafter."

No provision is made in the new article to continue the old court, and if the article takes effect from January first, it would seem that the recent Court of Appeals' judges have now no power except as Commissioners of Appeals, under the Judiciary article itself. They are the creatures of the old Constitution, and if the Judiciary article in that is superseded by the new article, we are quite at a loss to find any argument to justify a longer existence of the old Court. But salus populi Suprema est lex, and we shall not be surprised if the judges should construe this maxim to justify their continuance till the new Court comes into operation.

Since writing the above we have learned that the Judges of the Court of Appeals have decided, after consultation, to hold the January term of the court, and to hear the arguments in all cases as usual.

-The sudden death of the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton has struck every one with surprise and regret. Only a little time before his death the announcement was made that his health was improving, and his friends cherished the hope that a long and useful career was before him in the position on the bench of the United States Supreme Court to which he had just been elevated. He was but fifty-four, and few of those who listened to his argument in the Whitney and Morey case before Mr. Justice Swayne, only some ten days before his death- an argument worthy of the palmiest days of the American bar- could have imagined how shortly that apparently vigorous frame and giant intellect were to be laid low. Of Mr. Stanton as a politician and office-holder, we do not propose to speak. It must be left to history to form a just estimate of him in those respects. We of to-day are too much swayed by passion and prejudice to form correct notions as to either his faults or his merits. As a lawyer, his position was established. However much men may have differed as to the propriety of placing on the bench of the Supreme Court a man who had been actively engaged in the political questions of the day, we presume there were very few capable of forming a correct opinion, who doubted either his ability or integrity for the position. Of late years, while not in office, he had devoted his attention chiefly to cases in the United States courts. He was an able lawyer and an advocate of more than ordinary ability. Thoroughly grounded in the principles of the law; clear and quick in the perception of the right, and steadfast in its maintenance; diligent and conscientious in the discharge of his duties, he had worthily won a place alongside of the great lawyers of the country. An obituary notice of Mr. Stanton will be found in another column.

OCCASIONAL NOTES.

The design and scope of the LAW JOURNAL are so fully set forth in the Prospectus, which will be found in our advertising columns, that it will be unnecessary for us to dwell on the subject, Horace Smith seems to have had a very poor opinion of prospectuses, for he said of some one that "he lies like the prospectus of a new magazine." However happy may have been the simile in his day, it has not improved with age. Publishers have learned from experience that mendacious prospectuses, like curses, come home to roost." The promises made and plan proposed in the Prospectus of the LAW JOURNAL will be fully carried out. The publishers have undertaken its publication with the usually charitable object of "supplying a want long felt by the legal profession," and it is their purpose to make it, in every respect, capable of accomplishing that object. It is not intended to make it either local or sectional in its character. It is designed for the profession at large, and no reasonable effort will be spared to make it of value to the lawyers of every State in the Union.

It is no part of our plan to report decisions in full, except in special cases where the decision is deemed of great general importance. It would be impossible to give, within the necessary limits of a journal of this kind, but a very small part of the important de

cisions made during the year, and we have therefore deemed it the better plan to give an abstract of all the decisions, sufficiently full to enable the practitioner to comprehend readily the question decided. Should any one desire a full report of any case, he can very readily procure it by sending to the Reporter, whose name is given. The pages of the LAW JOURNAL Will always be open to the discussion of all questions pertaining to the law or its professors, and contributions are invited on all subjects of general legal interest.

It was announced that the first number of the LAW

JOURNAL would appear on the 20th of November last, but a postponement was rendered necessary by reason of the protracted illness of the managing editor.

The present number is sent free to the members of the bar throughout the country. If they desire its continuance, they should forward their names to the publishers at once. The LAW JOURNAL is stereotyped, and back numbers can be furnished at any time.

One of the most entertaining and valuable books ever written on the Study of the Law, is that by Samuel Warren, the author of "Ten Thousand a Year," and we are glad to know that an American edition of it is about to be issued from the press of Mr. John D. Parsons, Jr., Law Publisher, Albany. We know of no book that we can more honestly and heartily commend to both lawyers and students than this. It is, indeed, as said in Blackwood's Magazine, "a treasury of valuable information and sound advice." The work is the production of a man who has felt the difficulties which he has endeavored to remove; who writes not from hearsay nor conjecture, but from positive and painful experience still fresh in his memory; who knows what the student must feel by knowing what he himself has felt, and who writes to the student as well as for him. A vast amount of time is at present wasted by law students from not knowing how to study and what to study. Mr. Warren's treatise will teach them these things, and will afford them valuable aid in other directions.

- Mr. Hand, the Court of Appeals Reporter, has completed his labors on the first volume of his reports the forty of the Court of Appeals series — and it will shortly be ready for delivery to the profession. Mr. Hand is an able lawyer, and if he displays the same ability in the discharge of his duties as Reporter that he does in the practice of his profession, his reports will be a great improvement on many in the Court of Appeals series.

-The new Supreme Court Reporter, Mr. Abram Lansing, is engaged in preparing a volume of reports, which will shortly appear from the press of Messrs. Banks. Mr. Lansing, though a young man, is a wellread lawyer and a gentleman of culture, and will do his work well. The fifty-fourth volume of Barbour's Reports is in preparation. We have not learned whether it is Mr. Barbour's intention to continue his series further.

- Mr. N. C. Moak, of Albany, is engaged in preparing a new edition of Van Santvoord's Pleadings. The original work has always ranked high among treatises on the subject, and we have no doubt that its value will be greatly increased by the labors of Mr.

Moak. He is a thorough lawyer, and has the experience derived from long and extensive practice, which, combined, should render him capable of supplying all the shortcomings and deficiencies in the work which he has in hand.

- Montgomery H. Throop, of New York, a lawyer of great ability and culture, is engaged in the preparation of a treatise on the validity of verbal agreements, which will shortly be published by Mr. John D. Parsons, Jr., Law Publisher, Albany. The want of a full, accurate and well-planned treatise upon this subject has long been felt by the profession. The subject is one of the most obscure, as well as the most important, with which a lawyer has to deal. Mr. Throop has all the qualifications necessary to prepare a work which shall supply this want, and we await his book with high expectations.

OBITUARY.

EDWIN M. STANTON.'

The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, for several years Secretary of War, and a lawyer of marked ability and distinction, died at his residence in the city of Washington, on the morning of the 24th of December. The cause of his death was congestion of the heart, superinduced by exhaustion of the vital energies.

Edwin Macy Stanton was the son of Dr. David Stanton, and was born at Steubenville, Ohio, on the 19th day of December, 1815.

At an early age he entered Kenyon college, but, in the course of a few months, was compelled to give up his collegiate studies, on account of the failing circumstances of his father. He then became a clerk in a bookstore at Columbus, Ohio. During his clerkship he studied law, and afterward completed his studies in the office of Daniel L. Collier. He was admitted to the bar in 1836, and began the practice of his profession at Cadiz, Ohio. Shortly after, he was elected Prosecuting Attorney of Harrison county.

In 1842, having removed to his native town, he was chosen Reporter of the Supreme Court of the State, and issued a series of reports known as "Stanton's Reports."

In 1847, he became a partner of the Hon. Charles Shaler of Pittsburgh, and practiced chiefly before the courts of Pennsylvania and the United States District Circuit and Supreme Courts. He was counsel for the Erie Railway Company in the cases which grew out of and were continued by the first "Erie War," and was also the leading counsel for the State of Pennsylvania in the great Wheeling Bridge case. In 1856 or 1857, he removed to Washington, to argue before the Supreme Court in an important case connected with the Mexican boundary question; and, in 1858, was sent to California, as special counsel for the government in certain land cases which involved great public interests. These he conducted with marked ability, and the fees he received for his services were very large. In 1859 he was associated, at Cincinnati, with Mr. Lincoln in the suit arising out of the conflicting interest of the Manney and McCormick reaping machine. He was also engaged as counsel for General Sickles in the famous trial for the murder of Key. In December,

1860, he was called by President Buchanan to take the position of Attorney-General. On leaving the cabinet, at the expiration of Mr. Buchanan's term, he resumed the practice of his profession; but, on the 20th of January, 1862, accepted the position of Secretary of War, tendered him by President Lincoln. His history since that time is well known to the country.

ADMITTED TO THE BAR.

At the fourth general terms of the Supreme Court, held in the several judicial district of the State, the following named gentlemen were admitted to practice as attorneys and counsellors at law in all the courts of the State:

First District- Albert H. Ammidown, Frank H. Angel, George D. A. Armstrong, Louis Aubacher, Albert A. Abbott, Wm. C. Bailey, Godard Bailey, Wm. J. Bell, Arthur C. Butts, Butler G. Bixby, Hiram S. Blunt, Wm. H. Brown, John Contrell, Fredric Chase, Joseph B. Coe, John Charlton, Timothy I. Campbell, Chas. M. Clancy, Maurice S. De Vries, Willett Denike, Jr., Wm. A. Dunham, Henry S. Farley, Ashbel P. Fitch, Abraham Feuchtwanger, J. Henry Fowler, Hiram B. Ferguson, William J. Finnigan, Richard G. Fowles, Edward I. Fennell, Wm. Henry Gardiner, Andrew Gilhooly, Charles S. Gage, Isaac Heyman, Germain Hauschel, Lovell Hall, James O. Hoyt, George H. Hardie, Gerson N. Herman, Emanuel B. Hart, Judson Jarvis, Fredk. H. Kenny, Frank J. Kimball, Herman Kobbe, Samuel Kalisch, Wm. Korff, Isaiah Keyser, James H. Lawrence, Frank R. Lawrence, Louis C. Lewis, Wm. H. Lyon, Elias G. Levy, John D. Lindon, John McGinn, M. J. McKenna, James McConnell, David McClure, Peter Mitchell, James Maxwell, Allan McDonald, John E. McGowan, George McKechnie, James H. Matthaer, Frank H. Nugent, John H. O'Brien, Charles H. Picrson, Merritt A. Potter, George W. Poucher, Simon Kaufman, Obed H. Sanderson, Albert M. Schuck, George J. Smith, Lewis Sanders, Robert Sutherland, James G. Sinclair, Sergeant P. Stearns, Richard A. Storrs, Edward C. Sterling, Wm. Sinclair, Jr., Stephen C. Lynes, John J. Tindale, Louis C. Waehner, Abraham Webb, Jesse H. Whitaker, Henry T. Wing, George S. Wilkes, Matthew P. Breen, John C. McGuire, Benjamin' H. Yard.

Second District-William S. Palmer, Patrick Keady, Chalmers M. Bensom, Mayer Butzel, Joseph H. Bartlett, Samuel W. Clifford, Frank Crooke, Cornelius J. O'Donnell, Henry C. Duryea, John C. Donahue, Thomas Douglass, Levi B. Faron, Garret J. Garretson, Rudolph Herr, Edward F. Hart, Reynold Hunt, John Linsky, Eli Long, James H. McKenny, J. Sprague Mecker, Harrison W. Nanny, Nicholas E. O'Reilly, Charles A. Quitson, Eugene C. Roe, Whitehead H. Van Wyck, Henry Wilson, Jr. Bernard J. York, Thomas H. York.

Third District-John B. Grant, Schoharie; F. M. Sprague, Hudson; John M., Mattice, Schoharie; Peyton F. Miller, Hudson; J. M. Wagner, Wallace Westbrook, Samuel W. Buck, Kingston; Wallace Bruce, Hudson; Geo. P. Lawton, Fred. W. Brown, Thomas J. Guy, Clayton M. Parke, Hugh Maguire, Troy.

Fourth District-Charles A. Benton, Watertown; Robert B. Fish, Fultonville; Dexter A. Johnson, Gouverneur; James W. Sheehy, Port Byron; John W. Stone, Ogdensburgh; George B. Shepherd, Ogdensburgh.

Fifth District-Johnson C. Babcock, Sandy Creek, Oswego county, admitted by certificate from Supreme Court of California; Elbridge R. Adams, Lowville, Lewis county; Edwin S. Butterfield, Syracuse; Byron A. Benedict, Syracuse; Emmit W. Blanchard, Sandy Creek, Oswego county; William H. Carran, Utica; Joseph D. Denison, Syracuse; H, Clay Hawes,

Belleville, Jefferson county; Charles A. Hammond, Syracuse; John H. Knox, Útica; P. H. McEvoy, Little Falls, Herkimer county; Henry C. McCarty, Lowville, Lewis county; Dexter E. Pomeroy, Rome, Oneida county; John A. Ryan, Fairfield, Herkimer county; Orin G. Walrath, Watertown, Jefferson county.

Seventh District-Geo. H. Dickson, Rochester; Lanman Chase, Rochester; Wm. H. Clark, Lyons; James K. Smith, Hammondsport; H. H. Rockwell, Elmira; John Boyle, Cortland; Carlos E. Warner, Canandaigua; Robert P. Willson, Canandaigua; M. A. Leary, Penn Yan; John T. Andrew, 2d, Penn Yan; R. F. Randolph, Elmira; Charles S. Thomas, Cortland; Ogden Marsh, Dansville; George L. Waters, Cortland.

Eighth District-Leroy W. Filkins, John B. Greene, Geo. A. Blanchard, Sheldon T. Viele, Edward R. Bacon, Edward C. Hawks, Geo. A. Newell, Theodore F. Hascall, Dan. E. Chapin, Daniel E. Corbitt, Charles B. Knowlton.

LEGAL NEWS.

Russia is about to introduce trial by jury as a new pledge of her progress in civilization.

The Hon. Henry M. Waite, formerly Chief Justice of the State of Connecticut, died at Lyme, Conn., last month.

Norman L. Freeman has been reappointed Supreme Court Reporter of the State of Illinois for the term of six years.

Judge Isaac Davis, of Sacramento, is dead. He was a pioneer Californian, and a prominent Mason and Odd Fellow.

The Quebec Court of Appeals has decided against a plaintiff who claimed $400 deposited as a stake on an election bet.

The Attorney-General of Louisiana has obtained judgment against the State Treasurer for $16,000 for alleged services in collecting the special tax of 1868. He claimed $125,000.

An Ex-Judge of Probate in Oxford county, Me., has been indicted by the grand jury for fraudulently altering a deed of real estate. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was admitted to bail in $3,000.

Judge Barnard, of New York, recently refused to appoint a man committee of a lunatic's estate, on the ground that he had been heard, some time previous, to call the judge a scoundrel. The judge does not mean to encourage "contempt of court."

The following named gentlemen were recently admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court: E. D. Wheeler, of San Francisco, Wm. T. Wallace. of San Jose, Cal.; Robinson Toff, of Memphis, Tenn.; Eugene M. Wilson, of Minneapolis, Minn.; Albert Todd, of St. Louis, Mo. and C. P. Shaw, of New York city.

The Hon. Samuel Smith Nicholas died in Louisville, Ky., on the 11th ult. He was made Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisville in 1831; was Chancellor of the city, and a Member of the State Legislature for many years. As an appropriate close to his official labors, he assisted in the preparation of the Revised Code of Kentucky, to which he contributed some of its best features.

Judge Hall, of the United States District Court, recently decided that the making of a general assignment, without preferences, by an insolvent debtor, was an act of bankruptcy; that an express denial, under oath, of an intent to defeat or delay the operations of the Bankrupt act, by making such assignment, was of no avail, as against the conclusive legal inference of such intent, arising out of the admission of the execution of such assignment.