Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/116

 Rh does not prevail in any of the twenty-five other socalled "Code States," but has disappeared under the power of amendment, and indeed, as we also under stand, England copied the New York example in the matter of variance, as she has done in respect to every other item of modern law reform, "/-'as est ab Iwste doceri" — translating hosle mildly. At this point we shall leave this "pretty quarrel as it stands," merely observing that we do not think Mr. Hall was much astray, on the whole.

Lowell and the Law. — It is probably known to very few that James Russell Lowell set out to be a lawyer in his youth. His letters just published show an amusing fickleness on the subject. He changed his mind every few weeks, but finally forsook the law, fortunately, for literature. It seems however that he retained a taste for law reading, for he says, when nearly fifty years old, " I have been reading State Trials, as I always do when cast away. There is more nature in them than in all the novels " — mean ing human nature, probably. He also unearthed a queer view of the legal profession in " Letters of an American Fanner" (1782), by H. St. John Crevecteur, from which he quotes the following passage to Mr. E. L. Godkins : — "Lawyers . . . are plants that will grow in any soil that is cultivated by the hands of others, and when once they have taken root, they will extinguish every vegetable that grows around them. The fortunes they daily acquire in every province from the misfortunes of their fellow citizens are surprising. The most ignorant, the most bungling memlier of that profession, will, if placed in the most obscure part of the country, promote litigiousness, and amass more wealth than the most opulent farmer with all his toils. They have so dexterously interwoven their doctrines and quirks with the laws of the land, or rather they are become so necessary an evil in their present constitutions, that it seems unavoidable and past all remedy. What a pity that our forefathers, who happily extinguished so many fatal customs, and expunged from their new government so many errors and abuses, both religious and civil, did not also prevent the introduction of a set of men so dangerous! . . . The nature of our laws, and the spirit of freedom, which often tends to make us litigious, must necessarily throw the greatest part of the property of the colonies into the hands of these gentlemen. In another century, the law will possess in the North what now the Church pos sesses in Peru and Mexico." That century has considerably more than elapsed, and there is no fulfillment of the discouraging proph ecy of this timorous granger. Poor old crank! He did not reflect or observe that the liberty of the colonies was itself chiefly due to the teachings and labors of a few of the incendiary class which he decried.

95

Compulsory Photography If a man has got himself into a situation where the Government insists on having his likeness for their " Rogues' Gallery," we suppose he is practically bound to sit and has no remedy, although it is recorded that this process against an American gentleman detained for forgery, in Newgate, before conviction, raised a great excite ment in the House of Commons in 1879, and the Home Secretary had to explain and apologize. (See 20 Albany Law Journal, 162.) Professional pho tographers are the most impudent and unreasonable folks in the world. They seem to think that the human face divine was made for their special behoof, and that they have an inalienable right to take "snap shots" at it, willy nilly, and to expose and sell copies for their own pleasure and emolument, and that if a person once submits himself to the camera his por trait may be exhibited and sold by them at their own pleasure and for their own profit. This of course is a vulgar legal error and has been more than once denounced by the courts. The most impudent member of this craft is apparently an American who is thus described roundaboutly in the " Scots' Law Times " : — "A photographer tried to take a picture of a group of military officers at a recent reunion at Gettysburg, U.S.A. Some of the officers objected to being photographed, but the photographer persisted and made himself such a nui sance that somebody overturned his camera. Now he has sued Generals Sickles and Butterfield, who were in the party, for Sio,ooo to compensate for injury to his camera and loss of profits on the pictures he would have sold had his negative not been broken. The suit involves the right to take anyone's picture against his will and in defiance of protest, and the extent to which the proposed victim may go in resisting the camera fiend. It seems as though one ought to be able to say whether he will be taken or not, and to have considerable right of resistance to this process." We do not quite know whether our contemporary intends some puns in the last sentence. The pre sumption is against it, but at all events the offence seems to be committed. We may be set down among the " anti-snappers."

Literary Lawyers. — Quite a number of " literry fellers " have been cropping out among the lawyers of late, and naturally some are of Boston. Mr. Frederic J. Stimson has been aggravating his early offences of this description by some new short ventures, original and entertaining. Mr. Robert Grant has been elected (or appointed) probate judge on account, or in spite, of his pleasant literary writ ings. Mr. John C. Ropes, after having published an excellent review of Napoleon's career under the title