Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/174

 Rh

PUBLISHED MONTHLY AT £4.00 PER ANNUM.

SINGLE NUMBERS 50 CENTS.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor. THOS. TII.ESTON HALUWIS, 1038 Exchange Building, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of in terest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetter, anecdotes, etc.

No one can read the principal addresses de livered on the fourth of February without ex'periencing a feeling of satisfaction that the leaders of our bench and bar of to-day rose to the great occasion, and expressed in fitting man ner the well-deserved tribute to the memory of John Marshall, on the one hundredth anniversary of his accession to the bench. No other legal event in the history of this country has brought forth such eloquent utterances. In recognition of the high character of these orations, and to meet the widespread interest in them among the members of the legal profession, the April issue of THE GREEN BAG will be a Marshall number. The entire body of the magazine will be devoted to John Marshall day addresses, copies of which the distinguished orators on that occasion have courteously placed in our hands. It will be im possible, of course, to print in full all of these orations; but by a careful selection of the sa lient parts of the several addresses, it is hoped to present, as a connected whole, a comprehensive study of the life and work of the great Chief Justice. Such a review of his life and work by the men best fitted for the task — the distinguished and learned authors of these addresses, the fore most men on our bench, at our bar and in our law faculties— will have, we believe, permanent value. THE unfortunate juror at last has found an outspoken champion in high quarters. The sharp comments on the present jury system by Mr. Justice Brewer in one of his recent lectures at the Yale law school have attracted wide at tention. If the newspaper reports are correct, the learned lecturer said : " The present jury system is little more than a relic of a semi-civi lized system. The juror is treated as a criminal, or as if it was feared he would become one. He is watched by day and locked up by night.

I hope the time will come when the juror will be treated as if he were an honest man and when he will be paid adequately." These words will strike a responsive chord in the hearts of all unfortu nates who have served on a jury, and it is to be hoped that their utterance may lead to some practical result. It is not unreasonable to hope that this may be the case, in view of the weight which his large experience at the bar and on the bench will lend to Mr. Justice Brewer's words. How would it do to give the members of the bar a dose of jury duty? If legal difficulties stand in the way of that, the bar, or those mem bers of it in state legislatures and congress, might be locked up over night in a jury room. One such experience would be enough to bring about some, at least, of the reforms asked for. THE following note from a valued contribu tor explains itself : BOSTON, February 23, 1901. My dear Sir: My attention has been called to an error on page sixty of the February number of the THE GKEEN BAG, where through an inadvertance, unpardonable or otherwise. I wrote: "In Cohens T'. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, the Chief Justice held an act of Virginia unconstitutional which was incom patible with a constitutional act of Congress." As a matter of fact, the constitutionality of the act of Virginia was supported, and it was held not to be repugnant to the act of Congress involved in that case and upon which the plaintiff in error relied. I have the honor to be Yours very truly,

FRANCIS R. JONKS. This is an instance of the curious slips made occasionally even by the most careful and scholarly writers. ONE of the perquisites, so to speak, of an edi torial chair, is the privilege of receiving priceless advice and cheerful damnation from anonymous correspondents. Such unsigned communications have, as a rule, the virtue of refreshing frank ness — in all things but one. Why this reti cence as to the identity of the writer? Why, for example, should our good friend, the author of