Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/570



.—Mr. Frank Lockwood, Q. C., has published a clever address on "The Lawyers in the Pickwick Papers," with a frontispiece of Serjeant Buzzfuz, drawn by Mr. Lockwood. Mr. Lockwood informs us that there are three hundred and sixty characters in this book! — a statement almost incredible, but we rely on his census. Another statement is quite original and striking — that Serjeant Buzzfuz's address to the jury is the best known speech in legal annals. It is indeed, and Mr. Snyder ought to have included it in his " Great Speeches by Great Lawyers," although perhaps it is an instance of greatness thrust upon the person and the subject. Mr. Lockwood records, with true British pride, that on the occasion of the delivery of this address he was introduced to the audience by Lord Chief Justice Russell, and he gives us his speech of introduction, but we regard with greater interest his record of the fact that Charles Dickens's son was present and made a neat little speech.

"."—We once perpetrated a poem under this title for The Green Bag. At that time we were ignorant of a curious fact in natural history, recently brought to light by the "Albany Law Journal," which probably has been consulting with the Forestry Commission. That journal, in speaking of the celebrated case reduced by us to metre as aforesaid, and of another more recent English case concerning projecting branches, describes the trees in question as "Ewe" trees. If that designation is correct, the English Courts ought to be more lenient towards their ramifications.

.—It is highly probable that Mr. Joseph H. Choate, the presiding officer of this body, did not find his position last summer an "Easy Chair." He seemed however to bring his good nature and bright humor to bear at every point of stress, and to do his best to convince the struggling minority that their rights were not being sacrificed by the rapacious majority. Probably he was grateful for the silver "loving cup" presented to him at the close of the unloving performances. It is reported that nearly four hundred amendments were introduced, but only some twenty-five came out alive. Perhaps the most important measure rejected was that for woman suffrage, which seems to have been defeated on the ground that there are already too many voters, many of them bad, and that to suffer women to vote would be to admit some more bad voters. The convention seems to have done nothing to obviate the delays in the courts, unless abolishing number of courts in cities maybe considered a step in that direction. The convention proposes to prohibit free passes on lines of travel. It also proposes to apportion the State into election districts by the constitution, instead of leaving the matter to gerrymandering legislation. To provide for increase of population it is proposed gradually to increase the number of senators up to fifty and of assembly men up to one hundred and fifty instead of thirty-two and one hundred and twenty-eight, as at present. What would Moorefield Storey say to this? Doubtless that is a provision for more patriots to be bribed and otherwise corrupted. It seems to us that the great State has already got as many patriots as it can stand, although some of the New England States have more. But patriots come higher in New York than in New England. It is said that some of the lawyers in the convention contend that the amendments approved by it became a part of the constitution without submission to the people. The constitution does not seem explicit on this point. Amendments recommended by the legislature must be submitted, but in respect to those recommended by conventions the constitution seems to make no provision. The uniform practice however has been to submit them, and unquestionably this will prevail. Much criticism has been made on the submission of most of the amendments on a single ballot, which is manifestly unjust, as a voter may be compelled to vote for several bad ones for the sake of a single good one. 531