Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/388

 Rh admirable and interesting, in which the im portance of the lawyer, his influence, char acteristics and style are pointed out and ap preciated. They are remarkable examples of compression and in not a single instance has Mr. Veeder fallen short. Indeed they show the editor possessed of a rare critical faculty, of broad knowledge and culture, and of a literary style worthy of imitation. If reviewer or reader may not criticize, he may well be permitted envy. It should be said that each selection is pre ceded by an adequate, and at times, elabor ate statements which makes the text easy of comprehension and appreciation, and the work ends with a very satisfactory index. Mr. Veeder, ift would seem, has fallen asleep over his pen in a few instances. It is true (as stated on page 7), that Lord Mansfield was only twice directly reversed, but Perrin v. Blake (1769), I W. Bl. 672, dealt with the rule in Shelley's case, not with the ''question of literary copyright at com mon, law." Mr. Yeeder, confusing the two Shelleys, evidently had in mind Millar v. Taylor, (1769) 4 Burr. 2303. It is not with out interest to note that the dissenting opin ions of Mr. Justice Yates in both these cases were followed on appeal. The imperious Lord Chief Justice had not had a single dis sent from his judgments up to that date, and he took it so much to heart that the unfortu nate justice deemed it advisable to be trans ferred to the Common Pleas. Mr. Veeder ascribes the "Answer to the Prussian Memorial," 1753, to Mansfield, then solicitor genera!. It is true that Lord Mansfield is generally credited with the au thorship of the famous and authoritative document, but it is known that Sir George Lee had a hand in it. Sir Robert Phil", i more is inclined to attribute it to Lee, of whom he says: "He was the principal composer of a State paper on a great question of Interna tional Law. The Answer to the Memorial of the King of Prussia. ... To that Memorial indeed another name was af fixed, the name of one who was not in deed a member of the College of Advocates, but who was destined to be among the few luminaries of jurisprudence in our island, and

341

able to vie with those which have shown up on the continent. . . . This great man was then Mr. Murray, afterwards Lord Mans field." (i Phillimore's Int. Law, xlvi-xlvii.) In the list of distinguished judges, (p. xxiii.) Mr. Veeder places William K. McAl lister as the sole glory of Illinois. Concensus of opinion in Illinois would probably assign precedence to Lawrence, Scholfield, Bréese or Walker—perhaps in the order given. Again the life of B. R. Curtis, mentioned on page 619, was by his son B. R. Curtis, Jr., not by his brother, G. T. Curtis. Slips like these are most trifling blemishes in a work replete with scholarship and a fine literary and discriminating sense. A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF NEGOTIAHLE IN STRUMENTS. By John IV. D.aiiic!. 2 Vols. Fifth edition reedited and enlarged with notes and references to American and English cases by John W. Daniel and diaries A. Douglass. New York: Baker, Voorhis, and Company. 1903. (clivx4-936, 1004 pp.) It seems to be well settled that when doc tors disagree the patient dies; but in the present instance the Honorable John W. Daniel goes his. way untroubled, and the fifth edition of his authoritative work in two vol umes on Negotiable Instruments will be cited by the Supreme Court in the future as the previous editions have been in times past. The statement in the above paragraph is made because of the fact that Senator Dan iel's work has been reviewed by two compe tent hands—both teachers of the subject in two leading law schools—in the May and June numbers respectively, of the Columbia and Harvard Lau1 Review for the year 1903. The review in the Columbia Law Review is flattering and pronounces the author and his work in excellent standing and seems to take evident satisfaction in the favorable diag nosis. A few weaknesses are pointed out, such as foisting on the back of the great Lord Mansfield, a decision of Sir James of that name (Fentum v. Pocock, Sec. 1333) and the review closes with this bit of general