Слике страница

each of the several notices," is a limitation for the protection of the owuers of property advertised for taxes and not an authority to the treasurer to subject the property advertised to expenses for advertising beyond the sum fixed by the act of 1869. The two acts are not inconsistent and are to be construed together. The action is brought against the defendant in his official character, and the plaintiff disclaimed on the trial any right to charge him personally on the contract alleged. The contract was beyond the scope of his authority as treasurer and was not binding upon him in his official character or upon the county of Ulster. Boots v. Washburn, 79 N. Y. 207. Crouch v. Hayes. Opinion per Curiam. [Decided Feb, 10, 1885.]

two years before his application for a patent, will not render the patent void, where such sale is made for less than the value of the machine, without profit to the inventor, for the sole purpose of testing it, and with the understanding that it will be taken back if it does not work satisfactorily. Upon the whole evidence it is plain that the transaction was altogether experimental; therefore the invention was not “in public use or on sale" within the meaning of the statute. Birdsall v. McDonald, 1 Ban. & A. 165; Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126; Campbell v. Mayor, etc., 9 Fed. Rep. 503; Graham v. Geneva Lake Manufacturing Co., 11 id. 138; Graham v. McCormick, id. 859. (2) It being once shown that the use is experimental, then upon the question of its reasonableness in point of duration, every presumption should be made in favor of the inventor. `Innis v. Oil City Boiler Works. Opinion by Acheson, J. Cir. Ct., W. D. Penn., Jan. 1885. (See 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 1.-ED.]



CARRIER-SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR-ACCOMMODATIONS MUST BE EQUAL. -On a night steamboat plying on the Chesapeake bay colored female passengers may be assigned a different sleeping cabin from white female passengers. The right to make such separation can only be upheld when the carrier in good faith furnishes accommodations equal in quality and convenience to both alike. Citing U. S. v. Buntin, 10 Fed. Rep. 1739; Gray v. Cincinnati S. R. Co., 11 id. 683. The Sue. Opinion by Morris, C.J. Dist. Ct., Dist. Md., Feb. 1885. [See 8 Am. Rep. 641; 41 Am. Dec. 482.)

VENDOR AND VENDEE-RECORD OF AGREEMENT-ENTRIES IN INDEX-NOTICE.-C. and the American Emigrant Company owned certain interests in swamp lands, under the Iowa Swamp Land Act, and C. entered iuto a written agreement with the company, which was in effect a conveyance of his interest. The agreement was duly recorded, and in the index C.'s name was written in the grantor column, the company's name in the grantee column, in the column headed "character of instrument" was written

agreement," and in the description column was the entry, “with regard to swamp and overflowed lands.'' Subsequently S. purchased a portion of the lands. Held, that the entries upon the index were sufficient to put him on inquiry, and that he was bound thereby. The decisions of the Supreme Conrt of Iowa on this question are clear and decisive. In Calvin v. Bowman, 10 Iowa, 529, and White v. Hampton, 13 id. 260, it was held that the index was sufficient to charge notice, although no description of the property was entered on the index, but simply the words, "See record." In Bostwick v. Powers, 12 Iowa, 456, the entry upon the index was “ Certain lots of land," and it was held that this was sufficient. In Barney v. Little, 15 Iowa, 535, it is said to be the settled law of the State that “it is not necessarily and essentially a prerequisite to a valid registration that the index should contain a description of the lands conveyed; it is sufficient if it points to the record with reasonable certainty.” In Jones v. Berkshire, 15 lowa, 248, the rule is stated to be that “if the index discloses enough to put a careful and prudent examiner on inquiry, and if on such inquiry the adverse title would have been ascertained, the party will be held to notice.” American Emigrant Co. v. Call. Opinion by Shiras, J. Cir. Ct. S. D. Iowa, Jan. 1885. [See 45 Am. Rep. 189; 29 Alb. L. J. 65.-ED.]

PATENTS-PUBLIC USE--SALE TO TEST MACHINEPRESUMPTION.-- A single sale by an inventor of a machine embodying his completed invention more than

* Appearing in 22 Federal Reporter.

PROCESS-SERVICE ON COMPLAINANT OR NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT ATTENDING ON TRIAL.-A non-resident defendant in attendance upon the trial of his case, at which his presence is necessary both as a witness and for the purpose of instructing his counsel, is protected while in such attendance from service by summons of a new writ or complaint against him. The authorities upon the general question of the protection of nonresident parties and witnesses from the service of process, while they are in attendance upon the trial of cases in which they are concerned, are very numerous. It is sufficient to cite only those which bear upon the precise point in this case, and which are: Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568; Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 269; Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McL. 29; Halsey v. Stewart, 4N. J. L. 366; Miles v. McCullough, 1 Binn. 77. The decision is confined to the case of a non-resident defendant; because the Supreme Court of Conuecticut held, iu Bishop v. Vose, 27 Conn. 1, that a non-resident plaintiff was not protected, while in attendance upon the trial of his case in this State, from the serv. ice of a new writ by summons. There is perhaps a reason why a plaintiff who has voluntarily sought the aid and the protection of our courts, should not shrink from being subjected to their control, which does not apply to the condition of a defendant whose attendance is compulsory; and therefore I do not intend to express dissent from the doctrine of the Connecticut case, but to limit this decision to the facts which are before me. Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Wilson. Opinion by Shipman, J. Cir. Ct., Dist. Comn., Jan. 1885. [See 30 Alb. L. J. 117; 38 Am. Rep. 717.- ED.]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-POWER TO LICENSE-TAXREGULATING WASH HOUSES.–The council of Portland was authorized “to regulate" wash houses, and thereupon ordained that the proprietor of such a house should take out a license quarterly and pay therefor the sum of $5, or $20 a year, and in default thereof should be liable to fine and imprisonment. Held, that while the council had power to require the license as a means of regulating the business, the sum charged therefor was manifestly so far in excess of what was necessary or proper for that purpose that it must be considered a tax, and the ordinance imposing it is therefore so far void. In support of the proposition that the power to regulate a wash house does not include the power “to license,” counsel for the petitioner cites Burlington v. Bumgardner, 42 Iowa, 673; Com. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562; St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248; Corvallis v. Carlile, 10 Oreg. 139; Dunham v. Rochester, 5 Cow. 464; Barling v. West, 29 Wis. 314; Dill. Mun. Corp., $ 361. While counsel for the respondent cites to the contrary Burlington v. Lawrence, 42 Iowa, 681; Chicago P. & P. Co. v. Chicago, 88 Ill. 221;


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17; Welch v. Hotchkiss, 39 the fees charged by her counsel for prosecuting a suit Conn. 140; Cincinnati v. Buckingham, 10 Ohio, 257; ) against him for a divorce a mensa et thoro, pending Dill. Mun, Corp., § 91. Some of these authorities are which suit he died. But if it be made to appear affirm. flatly contradictory of others on this poin., but the atively that the suit was reasonably and justifiably indifference in the conclusion reached in most of the stituted, counsel are entitled to recover from the huscases is largely attributable to a difference in the cir- band's administrator reasonable fees for services rencumstances. The words “to control” and

to regu

dered therein. It has long ago been held that where a late," ex vi termini, imply to restrain, to check, to rule wife bas been turned out of doors and threatened by and direct. And in my judgment the power to do her husband, and she employed an attorney to either of these implies the right to license, as a conven- exhibit articles of the peace against him, the ient and proper means to that end. A license is husband was liable to the attorney for the payment of merely a permission to do what is unlawful at common his charges; for, as was said by the court, whenever law,or is made so by some statute or ordinance, includ- the husband by his conduct compels the wife to appeal ing the one authorizing or requiring the license. By to the law for protection, she may charge him for the this means the persons or occupations to be regulated necessary expenses of the proceeding as much as for are located and identified, and brought within the ob- necessary food or raiment; and her solicitor may sue Bervation of the municipal authorities, so that what- for his propes charges. Shepherd v. Mackoul, 3 erer regulations are made concerning them may be the Camp. 326; Turner v. Rookes, 10 AD. & Ell. 47. And more easily and certainly enforced, including the giv- so it has been held that the husband's estate was liable ing of security for their observance even before the for preliminary experises incidental to a suit for the license is issued. The authority of the National gov- restitution of conjugal rights, instituted by the wife, ernment, like that of a municipal corporation, is lim- but before the suit came to a hearing the husband ited to the powers expressly granted in the Constitu- died, and no decree therefore was ever pronounced. tion, and such implied powers as may be necessary Wilson y. Ford, L. R., 3 Exch. 63. In this last case and convenient to the due execution of the former. | last cited, Channell, B., said: “I think that where a And yet under the power "to regulate commerce suit was instituted, as it was here, for restitution of Congress may and does provide for licensiug the in-conjugal rights, and for alimony pendente lite, the exstrumentalities thereof, as vessels, pilots, engineers, penses in relation to it were necessary to her as wife, Indian traders and the like. License Tax cases, 5 and such as she was justified in incurring.” And for Wall. 470. In Ash v. People, 7 Cooley, 347, it was held costs and expenses necessarily incurred by the wife in that the council of Detroit, under the power to license filing a petition for judicial separation, although the and regulate the sale of meats, might charge a fee of $5 petition was not proceeded with, it was held the busfor such license for, as I infer, the period of one year. band was liable. Rice v. Shepherd, 12 C. B. (N. S.) And the fee in this case should certainly be no more 332. In the case of Brown v. Ackroyd, 5 El. & B. 819, than in that. In Duckwall v. New Albany, 25 Ind. it was held that the proctor was not entitled to re283, it was held that the defendant, under the power cover his costs for instituting proceedings for a di"to regulate” ferries having a landing within its vorce a mensa et thoro, because it did not appear that limits, could not charge a fee of $300 for a licence there- there was reasonable ground for the proceeding, that for. Now $300 per annum for a licence to run a ferry being necessary to entitle the wife to pledge her huson the Ohio river at New Albany, in 1865, was proba- band's credit for the costs of such proceeding; but it bly a smaller compensation relatively than $20 a year was fully conceded and held by the court that if that for keeping a wash house in Portland. There are other fact had appeared the husband would have been liable. cases, as for instance Boston v. Schaffer, 9 Pick. 419, And in the case of Stocken v. Patrick, 29 L. T. Ex. (N. and Burlington v. Putnam Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 102, in S.) 507, where it appeared that the wife had good which comparatively high fees have been sustained; ground for instituting a suit for separation, because of but there the power to licence was backed by the fur- the cruelty of her husband, and her attorney haring ther provision that the municipal council in question brought suit for a divorce on the ground of adultery might impose such terms or charge such sum for such and cruelty, which was compromised by an agreement license as to it might seem just and reasonable, or ex- for a deed of separation, the solicitor was held entitled pedient. And this is in effect, if not in form, a power to sue and recover of the husband for his costs as beto tax the licensed occupation. But here there is not tween attorney and client, including the costs as beeven an express power to license, let alone tax. The tween attorney and client in the divorce suit. Aud so power to license is only implied from the power to in the recent case of Ottaway v. Hamilton, 3 C. P. regulate, and can only be used for that purpose. All | Div. 393, on appeal, it was held that a solicitor, em. things considered, it is apparent that the sum required ployed by the wife to take proceedings against her to be paid the city for this license is far beyond any husband to obtain a divorce on the ground of cruelty special expense that it may incur on account of the and adultery, was entitled to sue and recover of the regulation to which it pertains; and it is quite clear husband for extra costs, that is, costs reasonably infrom this fact, as well as the time and manner of its curred by him beyond the costs taxed and allowed as payment, that this sum is in effect a tax, and was so between party and party. In that case Lord Justice intended. This being so, the ordinance is go far void, Bramwell, in the course of his judgment, put the caso and the petitioner is restrained of his liberty without we are now considering. “Suppose," said be, "a husdue process of law, contrary to the Constitution of band were to die after the petition was filed, but bethe United States. Dist. Ct. Dist. Oreg. The Laundry fore the decree could be pronounced against him, License Case. Opinion by Deady, J.

would not the common-law liability of his estate for the
costs incurred by his wife continue in full force? I there-

fore think that the power of the wife to pledge her MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS ABSTRACT.*

husband's credit remains unimpaired.” And in con


Subject to the question whether

they (the costs) have been justifiably incurred, the deVORCE CASE-WIDOW CANNOT SUE FOR--COUNSEL MAY.

fendant is bound to pay them, just as if he had re-A widow cannot maintain an action against the administrator of her deceased husband for the amount of

tained the plaintiff to act as his solicitor.” But it is a

condition of the right to recover that it be made to ap*Appearing in 62 Maryland Reports.

pear affirmatively that the suit of the wife against the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

husband was reasonably and justifiably instituted. to such promise or expectation. This was the princiHooper, in re, 2 DeG., J. & S. 91; Brown v. Ackroyd, ple of the decision in Gregory v. Mighell, 18 Ves. 328. 6L. &. B. 319. In this State it has never been other

* If on the other hand a tenant being in poswise than that the husband has been required to session of land, and knowing the nature and extent of pay the reasonable counsel fees for services rendered his interest, lays out money upon it in the hope or exthe wife in suits for divorce. The amount allowed has pectation of an extended term or an allowance for exalways depended largely upon the circumstances of penditure, then, if such hope or expectation has not the case and the pecuniary resources of the parties. been created orencouraged by the landlord, the tenant Ricketts v. Ricketts, 4 Gill, 105. The law upon this has no claim which any court of law or equity can ensubject as settled in several of the American States is force. This was the principle of the decision in Pilat variance with that of England, and according to the ling v. Armitage, 12 Ves. 78, and like the decision in decisions of the courts of those States, this action Gregory v. Mighell, seems founded on plain rules of could not be maintained. But the principle of the reason and justice." In such a case as Ramsden v. English decisions would seem to be more in conso- Dyson the evidence, according to Lord Kingdown's nance with our own practice, and we shall therefore view, showed that the tenant expected a particular follow them. McCurly v. Stockbridge. Opinion by kind of lease, which Stuart, V. C., decreed to him, Alvey, C. J.

though it does not appear what form of relief

Lord Kingsdown himself would have given. In such RECENT ENGLISH DECISIONS.

a case as the Duke of Beaufort v. Patrick, 17 Beav. 60,

nothing but perpetual retention of the land would satPARTNERSHIP-SHARE IN PROFITS AND LOSSES.-By isfy the equity raised in favor of those who spent an agreement signed by W. and H. and Co. it was their money on it, and it was secured to them at a agreed that for the part taken by W. in the busiuess Valuation. In such a case as Dillwyn v. Llewelyn, 4 then carried on by H. and Co., they should pay him a De G. F. & J. 517, nothing but a grant of the fee simfixed salary of 1801. per annum, and in addition he ple would satisfy the equity which the lord chancellor was to receive one-eighth share of the net profits held to have been raised by the son's expenditure on and bear one-eighth share of the losses, as his father's laud. In such a case as the Unity Bank v. abown by the books when balanced. W. agreed to King, 25 Beav. 72, the master of the rolls, holding that leave with the business 1,5001., which was not to be the father did not intend to part with his land to his withdrawn by him during the continuance of the sons who built npon it, considered that their equity agreement, and in the meantime interest thereon at would be satisfied by recouping their expenditure to 5 per cent per annum was to be paid to him. The them. In fact the court must look at the circuma agreement was to continue in force until the expirn- stances in each case to decide in what way the equity tion of four months' notice in writing on either side, can be satisfied. Jud. Com. Priv. Coun. Plimner v. at the expiration of which the sum of 1,5001., with Mayor of Wellington. Opinion per Curiam. [51 L. T. any arrears of interest, salary and profits, was to be Rep. (N. S.) 475.] paid to W., but H. and Co. were to be at liberty to pay 1,5001. to W. on giving one month's notice in

FINANCIAL LAW. writing. Held (affirming the decision of Pearson, J.), that no partnership inter se was created by the agree- NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT--COUPON BONDS-NEGOment, which was only an agreement by a servant to TIABILITY-SEAL.-A coupon bond of a private corgive his services at a fixed salary, with a share of poration, payable to bearer, and secured together with profits in addition, and a similar liability for losses. other bonds of the same character by a mortgage on Pooley v. Driver, 5 Ch. Div. 458; 22 Eng. Rep. 214, dis- the works of the company, is a negotiable instrument, tinguished ; Pawsey v. Armstrong, 18 Ch. Div. 698, and the mere addition of the seal of the corporation questioned. Ct. of App. Walker v. Hirsch. Opin- does not destroy its negotiability. When such bond ions by Baggallay, Cotton and Lindley, L. JJ. (51 L. is delivered by a person having possession of the same T. Rep. [N. S.) 481). [27 Eng. Rep. 512; 32 Am. Rep. to another party who gives value for it and takes it 267.-ED.)

without notice of any defect in the title, the title LICENSE – IRREVOCABLE- - MAKING IMPROVEMENTS passes to the transferee irrespectlve of any defect in ON LAND.-The equity to arise from expenditure on the title of the transferrer. It is held by the Supreme land need not fail merely on the ground that the in- Court of the United States, and by the courts of our interest to be secured has been expressly indicated.

sister States, that the bond of a corporation is negoP. erected a jetty on the foreshore of the harbor of tiable, and that the mere addition of the seal of the W. under a revocable license from the Crown to use corporation which issued it does not destroy its neit for the purposes of a wharfinger; afterward, at the gotiability. So where the name of the payee is left instance of the colonial government, he extended the blank the holder may fill in his own name, and bring jetty, and made other additions to it, and it was for suit on the instrument. Chapin v. Vermont & Mass. some time used by the government for emigrants. R. (0., 8 Gray, 575; White v. Same, 21 How. 575. The Held, that the license had become irrevocable, and bond of a railroad company to secure payment of that the equitable right so acquired by P. was “an es. money, although under seal, when made payable to tate or interest in land” which could be the subject of bearer or to order, is regarded as invested with all the compensation under local statutes. The law relatiug to attributes of negotiable paper. Zabriskie v. Cleveland, cases of this kind may be taken as stated by Lord C. & C. R. Co., 23 id. 381; Winfield v. Hudson, 28 N. Kingsdown ju the case of Ramsden v. Dyson, L. R., 1 J. L. 255; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 120; Morris H. of L. 129. The passage is at page 170: “If a man, Canal Co. v. Lewis, 12 N. J. Eq. 323. So municipal under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain bonds, made payable to bearer, are held to be negotiinterest in land, or what amounts to the same thing, able. They are transferable by delivery, and the under an expectation created or encouraged by the holder may sue in bis own name. Taylor on Priv Corp., landlord that he shall have a certain interest, takes $ 326; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278; Crompossession of such land with the consent of the land- well v. County of Sac, 96 id. 51; Ottawa v. National lord, and upon the faith of such promise or expecta- Bank, 105 id. 342; Thompson v. Perrine, 106 id. 589. tion, with the knowledge of the landlord and without The early decisions of our own State do not recognize objection by him, lays out money upon the land, a this rule to its full extent. The later cases however court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect have been gradually approaching a conclusion in har.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

mony with the decisions elsewhere. We will refer to predecessor; but I own it is more gratifying to me
a few cases showing the conflict which has been going than any personal compliment which could be paid to
on and the final conclusion reached. It was held in me, for I see in this another proof, in addition to the
Frevall v. Fitch, 5 Whar. 325, and in Hopkins v. R. many which have been pressed upou me during the
Co., 3 W. & S. 410, that an instrument in the form of short time since I landed on these shores, of the cor-
a promissory note, if attested by the seal of the cor- dial and hearty feeling of sympathy which exists be-
poration, was not negotiable. Iu Carr v. Lefevre, 3 tween the English people and the people of the coun-
Casey, 413, it was held that a bond issued by a corpo- try which I have the great honor to represent. An
ration, payable to bearer, will pass by delivery, and the American represeutative coming here finds that it is
holder may sue on it in his own name. In the opin- no foreign mission on which he has been sent. On
iou of the court, by Mr Chief Justice Lewis, it is said: both sides of the Atlantic he finds that he is equally
"We do not desire to have any doubt on the question at home. He has changed his sky, but not the hearts
whether the holder of bonds issued by a corporation, by which he is surrounded. [Applause.] He comes
payable to bearer, may maintain an action on them in as a stranger, but he is soon made to perceive that he
his own name. Such bonds are not strictly negoti- is welcomed and established at once as a friend.
able under the law merchant, as are promissory notes [Hear, hear.] It is an undeniable fact, and in my
and bills of exchange. They are however instruments judgment a most significant and gratifying fact, that
of a peculiar character, and being expressly designed the relations between the people of the two great coun)-
to be passed from hand to hand, and by common tries are growing more cordial every day. I believe
Usage so transferred, are capable of passing by deliv- they never were so cordial as they are at this moment,
ery so as to enable the holder to maintain an action on [Applause.] International prejudices are usually the
them in his own name.” This rule is recognized to be offspring of international misunderstanding; and
correct in Phila. & Sunbury R. Co. v. Lewis, 9 Casey these rapidly disappear under the influence of a large
33. It was ruled in Diamond v. Lawrence County, 1 and liberal international intercourse. [Hear, hear.)
Wright, 353, that a coupon bond of the county, under That is the means, under providence, that is bringing
seal, should not be treated as negotiable paper, these people nearer and nearer, all the time, to each
although it was there conceded that all the courts, other. (Hear, hear.] Steam and electricity have
American and English, held otherwise. County of bridged the Atlantic, and both countries are full of
Beaver v. Armstrong, 8 Wright, 63, contains a very the citizens of each other. Many Americans live here,
full reference to the authorities, showing that corpor- and many English reside in the United States. Every
ation bonds under seal payable to beare in money summer this country is overspread with visitors from
were negotiable. See also Bunting Admr. v. Camden, the other side of the Atlantic. How cordially on our
etc., R. Co., 31 P. F. Smith, 251; Gibson v. Lenhart, 5 side of the Atlantic the feeling I have referred to as
Out. 522; Phelan v. Moss, 17 P. F. Smith, 59; McSpar- existing here is reciprocated, those who have traveled
ran v. Neeley, 10 Norris, 17. Sup. Ct. Penn., Oct. 6, in the United States will know [hear, hear), while
1884. Mason v. Frick. Opinion by Mercur, J. (15 W. those who have not been there I cordially invite in
Note Cas. 369.)

the name of my country to go. [Cheers.] It is such

intercourse that has brought the two people together MINISTER PHELPS' FIRST AFTER-DINNER in the mamer to which I have alluded. The nature of SPEECII IN ENGLAND.

the relations between governments, and especially of

great nations, is most important undoubtedly, and we [From the London Daily Standard, June 5.]

are to be felicitated, that as the lord mayor has said, T the Mansion house last night the lord mayor en- the relations between the governments of England

tertained her majesty's judges at a banquet, and and of the United States are now on so satisfactory a not only the bench but the bar and law generally were footing that nothing has to be said of them on any oclargely represented. An additional interest attached casion. But after all the real sy nipathy and fraterto the occasion from the presence of the American nity which should exist between nations depend uot minister, who is a distinguished member of the legal upon the governments, and are not to be brought profession in the United States, and who made his first about by diplomacy; they depend upon the personal appearance in public. There were some 300 ladies and sympathy of the feelings of the people for each other. gentlemen present, the legal notabilities being Lord [Hear, bear.] If I may be permitted to allude to reJustice Lindley, Lord Chief Justice Morris, Lord Jus- cent events, I can assure you that when it was pertice Fry, Lord Watson, Lord Justice Bowen, Justices ceived in America that the clouds of war which apDenman, Kay, Manistry, Mathew, Cave, Day, Lopes peared to be settling down began to dissipate, and and North, Baron Pollock and a strong muster of Q. there was a hope-in which I pray God we may not be Co's and of other guests.

disappointed--that the sunshine, if continued, was At the banquet the loving cup was circulated and likely to fall unobstructed on the multiplied industhe royal toasts were duly drunk.

tries of England, there was no people within the range The lord mayor proposed the health of the min- of humanity by whom that conclusion was received ister of the United States. While cordially wel- with more sincere and complete satisfaction and gratcoming his excellency in the name of the whole itude than by the people of the United States. country, he would express a hope that the existing re- [Cheers.] Especially, sir, as it seems to me, should lations between the two countries might be main- the fraternal feeling between these great nations find tained, so that no great diplomatic activity on his part expression in this place, and on such an occasiou, would be necessary.

where you, my lord mayor, preside in the capacity of Mr. Phelps, whose rising was the signal for contin- chief magistrate of this greatest city in the world, ued applause, said: I am very much indebted to you, whose commerce has more than put a girdle rouud my lord mayor, for the very kind words in which my about the earth, and whose great industry and businame has been presented, and to you, my lords, ladies ness have made its commerce. It is there tbat you and gentlemen, for the more than kind and generous touch us most nearly. America is emphatically a manner in which you have received it.

I do not pre

country of industry and business, and in no other sume to take to myself in any degree the honor of this ¡ country in the world do business men have so large a reception. I am as yet a comparative stranger withi 'share of influence in the affairs of government. Amer the gates of England, and bave no such claim upon ica is pre-eminently a country for the worker and not your personal consideration as had my distinguished for the idler, and therefore here more than anywhere



else is it appropriate that expression should be given fluous or are not being performed. Between leading to the true relations which exist between the two States like the Union and Great Britain causes of countries. [Hear, bear.) But there is another reason friction are ever liable to arise. They may be rubbed why an American representative who, as you have into sores, or soothed into subsidence, much at the said, my lord mayor, is an American lawyer, should discretion of diplomacy. A sympathetic American be glad to come here on this occasion, and that is the representative will understand that for Englishmen common share we claim with you and the common to wish to provoke American ill.will is inconceivable. admiration which we feel with you for those distin- He will comprehend their general disposition to guished men who are the judges of England. [Hear, friendliness, and something warmer. He will put to hear.) We claim them also as our brethren, for in the true account the accidents of local manner and hundreds of American courts, and to thousands of expression. He will feel himself accredited to the lawyers as well as judges who never saw and never British people no less than to the secretary for foreign will see the faces of English judges, their names are affairs. To Englishmen it is at least as important as household words, and their judgments are the sub- to an American minister that he should accept his jects of constant study and instruction. Of American functions in that spirit. Mr. Phelps’ sample of himjudges, it may be said that they administer laws over self at the Mansion House is testimony that his the wide area between the Atlantic and Pacific largely interpretation of his obligations agrees with theirs. founded on your judgments here, so greatly are they A special counection with one of the great divisions esteemed and valued. We have lately bad among us of English life and thought tends to facilitate a genone of the most distinguished members of the English eral appreciation of the nationality it is an American bench-Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. He came as the envoy's province to study. A member of an American guest of the American bar, but he remained as the profession which is also an English profession begins guest of the American people. (Cheers.) He delighted by not being a stranger. Mr. Lowell from the mothem, and I believe he came away not altogether dis- ment he occupied the legation was at home. As a pleased with us. [Hear, hear.] I hope many of his member of the vocation of letters, he had a key to the distinguished brethren will follow his example and citadel of English hearts. Mr. Phelps is among the travel through what I may call the second jurisdiction most eminent of American lawyers, and has stepped of the British bench. I think in no one thing are the on shore in the midst of a confraternity which is British people more largely to be congratulated than scarcely other than his own. An American minister upon their judiciary; for it is British justice which has who has spent, as Mr. Phelps worthily boasts, his best built up British liberty. The freedom of England has years in the practice of the law, is provided with a been fought for in many a field, and contended for in wedge warranted to open the hardest knots of insular many a parliament, and many a great light has been

He speaks the dialect in vogue wherever lawthrown upon it from the judicial bench, and the free- yers are met; and where are they not? Armed with dom we enjoy we inherited from you. Your poet lau- the professional shibboleths, he has of his personal right reate has condensed the whole thing in his lines : as unchallenged admittance into the inmost recesses of

English habits as the author whose heart both sides of "Where freedom broadens slowly down

the Atlantic are equally empowered to read. Not in From precedent to precedent." (Cheers).

literature itself, common as it is to the two lands, is The London Times of June 5th says: Mr. Phelps, the National inheritance of Great Britain and the the new United States minister, appeared for the first United States more genuinely undivided and joint time on Weduesday evening in his official character, than in law. There are American text books which before a large assemblage of Englishmen. He gave on

have educated two generations of English jurists. Judgthat occasion abundant reason for the British public ments of English courts are cited at Washington with to desire that he may let it see much of him, and en- hardly less technical and almost more moral authority able it to become intimately acquainted with his mer

than the decisions of American judges. On particular its. In his answer to the Lord Mayor's proposal of poists, sometimes grave, oftener trivial, the courts of his health, he chose his topics with the utmost judg- the two countries differ. In guiding principles and in ment, and treated them with perfect taste. It was spirit they obey the same motives, and would esteem something of an ordeal at once for his audience and it a serious discredit to be convicted of unexplained for himself, and both emerged from it with mutual divergence. For both the advantage is manifest and satisfaction. The succession to Mr. Lowell could not extraordinary. The absence of direct authority in the but be a trying inheritance. An infusion of a little liter- expositions from across the water, to which Mr. ary crossgrainedness into his predecessor's diplomatic Phelps referred, increases rather than lessens their behaviour would have smoothed Mr. Phelps' entrance utility. A lawyer adopts more or less mechanically on his ministerial career. Mr. Lowell has supplied when in his favor, or struggles against as tyrannical him with no opportunities of solacing contrast be- when adverse, precedents from his native tribunals. tween men of genius and men of affairs. No legation Without any sense of constraint he cousults conclucould have been conducted more efficiently than that sions arrived at by minds which, though foreign, are of the United States during the past few years. Its trained like his own and ackuowledge identical princhief showed himself to be as capable in interviews at ciples, in order to inform his own intelligence, and to the foreign office as he was brilliant in the Abbey assist; his reason in its voluntary operations. AmeriChapter House. His successor is known for excellent can lawyers are in this impersonal way very familiar business qualities. He spoke on Wednesday with a already to Englishmen, and have long been bighly regrace of diction and an elevation of tone which prove garded by them. Individually they are less well him fitted to fill Mr. Lowell's place as well socially as

known abroad than the liberality of the English legal iu office. The two countries want at the United States vacatiou has enabled the professors of this country to legation in London one who will live with English- be. Mr. Phelps will do much toward repairing the omismen while he negotiates. The lord mayor expressed

sion. He will be a medium toward bringing the Enga natural hope that very little might be heard of Mr. lish and American bars and benches together in other Phelps' discharge of his diplomatic duties. As Mr. modes than by their partnership in law books and axPhelps said in his reply, it is indeed matter for con- ioms. Lord Coleridge investigated miputely during his gratulation when, as now, they require nothing to be

American tour the American legal procedure, and is besaid about them. Because they exoite no public lieved to have persuaded himself of its adaptibility in auxiety it is not to be supposed they either are super- several respects to English needs.

Mr. Phelps can

« ПретходнаНастави »