his father. The peculiarity of this list, which might be extended with little trouble, lies in the eminence of these six-and-twenty names it contains. If they were omitted from literary history, Italian and German poetry would be nowhere, France would be robbed of one of its greatest and most national poets, English poetry would lose its father, and in all respects be very appreciably poorer. If less classic names in poetical history are taken, such as Talfourd, Macaulay, Bryant and Barry Cornwall, the list might be infinitely extended; and, if filial relationship to the legal profession be considered, as in the case of Wordsworth, the close connection between poetry and law will look such a matter of course that the few eminent exceptions will only tend to prove the rule. Milton was the son of a scrivener. There is no need to indorse the fancy that Shakespeare may have been a law clerk, or to suggest that Dante might have been influenced by a residence at the great legal university of Bologna. But there is another list strikingly to the purpose-the long roll of great lawyers who, like Cicero, Sir Thomas More, Lord Somers, Blackstone and Sir William Jones, have found flirtation with the Muses no impediment to their marriage with the law. It may be that this close connection of two seemingly irreconcilable pursuits is due to some rule of contrast; or is it that fiction, romance and verbiage afford to poetry and law a common standing-ground?"

A New York lay contemporary states that in the case of the People ex rel. Walker v. The Court of General Sessions, which was the dog treadmill case, corner of Broadway and Houston street, where Walker, the proprietor, was convicted and fined $25 for cruelly treating a dog, the general term of the Supreme Court on certiorari have unanimously affirmed the conviction. Judge Davis, who writes the opinion, after disposing of the technical points raised, says: "On the merits of this case there appears to be no reason for interfering with the judgment. Although 'a dog is not a beast of burden,' yet it is not cruelty to train and subject him to any useful purpose. His use upon a 'treadmill,' or an inclined plane,' or in any mode by which his strength or docility may be made serviceable to man is commendable and not criminal, but his abuse while so employed, whenever it amounts to cruelty, is a crime, and punishable precisely under the same circumstances as the cruel usage of the higher animals. Evidence enough was given on the part of the prosecution to show harsh aud unreasonable treatment by the relator of his dog, producing unnecessary pain and suffering, and it was for the court below to determine from the conflicting evi, dence whether the alleged cruelty was established. We think the suit should be dismissed and the proceedings of the Special Sessions affirmed.

The London Law Times of April 24, says that " Sunday, being the first Sunday in Easter term, some of Her Majesty's judges, in accordance with an ancient custom, attended in State the afternoon service at St. Paul's Cathedral. The lord mayor, accompanied by the lady mayoress, and attended by the sword and mace bearers, and the city marshal, went from the Mansion house to the cathedral in his carriage drawn by four hourses to meet their lordships. All the civic dignitaries wore their distinctive robes of office, and each carried a bouquet. A large number of the common council in their mazarine gowns likewise attended

the service. The judges present were the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Brett, Mr. Justice Archibald, Mr. Justice Denman, Mr. Justice Field, and Mr. Justice Huddlestone, and with them came Mr. Serjeant Robinson, and Mr. Serjeant Cox. On the arrival of their lordships a procession, headed by the choir and clergy of the cathedral, and the corporation authorities, escorted them to their stalls. The sight altogether was extremely picturesque and attracted a vast congregation."

Ex-Chief Justice George W. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, died at Rome recently. He was born at Bethany, Wayne county, Penn., in 1809; he was educated at Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y., where he was a class-mate of Horatio Seymour, and Henry S. Randall; he commenced to study law in 1830 at his native place; and in 1852 he became Supreme Court Judge. He held other judicial positions and was member of congress. In recent years he has been devoted to antiquarian researches.- At the annual election of officers of the New York Law Institute on Monday, the following officers were chosen: President, Charles O'Conor; Vice-Presidents, Charles Tracy, Samuel Blatchford, Joseph H. Choate; Corresponding Secretary, Benjamin D. Silliman; Recording Secretary, Joseph S. Bosworth. Other officers were also elected and committees were appointed.--District Attorney Phelps states that he, as well as Recorder Hackett and City Judge Sutherland, is of opinion that the election of an additional judge of the Court of General Sessions of New York city, the bill providing for which has just been signed by the Governor, is a public necessity, and will be productive of much benefit.

A story illustrative of the advantages of studying law by cases, and the complaints which are sometimes made of the uncertainty of the law, used to be told by an eminent lawyer of Massachusetts, whose name is still associated with many of the pleasant anecdotes which used to be repeated at the social meetings of the bar, and may not be wholly without point in the present phases of legal science. On his returning to his office one day, he found his table loaded with books upon which a student in his office seemed to be diligently engaged. Before he could have a chance to inquire as to the subject of his investigation, the student broke out with an expression of surprise and astonishment to find the law so defective. To an inquiry what led to such a sweeping remark, the student informed Mr. B. that, in his absence, a client from a neighboring town had come into the office, and told him that a man had just got on to his horse and rode him off, and he wanted to know how he could get him back, or get satisfaction for his loss? He had thereupon gone to work and looked into the index of every law book in the office, to find something about "horse" or "saddle," and was surprised to find that the law had made no provision for either of them. He had, therefore, become satisfied that the client was without remedy, and had so informed him, and he had gone home on foot. It is needless to say that Mr. B. informed his student that a lawyer sometimes was able to settle a question about a specific article, by a course of reasoning drawn from general principles, although the law writers had been so culpably negligent as to omit to name that particular article. And, thereupon, the student gravely concluded that the index of a law book was not always the surest mode of settling legal principles in their application to particular cases.

All communications intended for publication in the LAW JOURNAL should be addressed to the editor, and the name of the writer should be given, though not necessarily for publication.

dressed to the publishers.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, MAY 22, 1875.

CURRENT TOPICS.

IN an able article in the Independent, Dr. Spear

discusses "State Citizenship," under the United States Constitution. After reviewing the constitutional provisions relating to the subject and the adjudications of the Supreme Court, Dr. Spear comes to the conclusion that State citizenship lies entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the general government, with the exception of those restraints which the constitution imposes upon the powers of the States in relation to the privileges and immunities of such citizenship. As a consequence, the only offenses in regard to which congress can legislate are those that fall under its jurisdiction either by an express or necessarily implied power, derived from the federal constitution. It is the business of the State to

punish all other offenses, according to its discretion; but if they fail to do this, congress is not thereby

invested with power to do what is omitted. Dr. Spear says that if we "once concede that congress can exercise State powers in respect to the citizens of a State whenever that State fails properly to exercise its own powers, this one concession is the end of the governmental system which the federal convention framed and the people adopted." He shows that the restrictions in the federal constitution, being directed to the States and to these only, can have no application to the offenses and personal wrongs which individuals may commit against each other in the several States. They hence bestow upon congress no power to legislate in respect to these

offenses and wrongs.

On Tuesday Judge Blatchford rendered the decision of the United States Circuit Court in the case of Carl Vogt, involving the question whether the federal courts have the power to revise the action of the United States commissioner in holding an accused person to await the president's warrant of extradition. The court holds that in an extradition case no one can revise the opinion of the commissioner except the president. If the president should be of opinion that the evidence taken before the commissioner was not sufficient to sustain the charge, then it would be his duty to withhold the warrant of extradition. If he should be of opinion that it was sufficient, then it would be his duty to grant VOL. 11.- No. 21.

shal. But the indefatigable counsel of Vogt have obtained a writ of habeas corpus from a judge of the New York Supreme Court, with a view of raising some other question in the case. We must say that the persistency and ingenuity with which this man's case is conducted is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the history of criminal justice.

It will be remembered that in February last, Dion Boucicault, the author of the drama called "the Shaughraun," procured an injunction against the proprietor of the Theater Comique, in New York, restraining him from placing upon the stage of that theater a drama entitled "Skibbeeah," on the ground that it had been plagiarized from "the Shaughraun.” A demurrer was afterward filed by defendant, and it was asked that the case be dismissed because the bill did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The points arising on demurrer were argued on Monday in the United States Circuit Court at New York, Justice Hunt presiding. It appears that the bill alleges generally that the complainant has complied with all the provisions of the Revised Statally that he duly deposited in the mail, before publiutes relating to copyright, and then alleges specific

cation of the dramatic composition called "the Shaughraun," a printed copy of the title thereof, addressed to the librarian of congress, and that the librarian duly recorded the name of the drama. No other allegation of compliance with the requirements of the law is made. Now, by the copyright law it is required not only that a copy of the title be sent to the librarian, but that within ten days after publication two copies of the composition be deposited. The defendant raises the point that, although the deposit of the title is alleged in the bill, there are no allegations that the copies were deposited except by the general averment of compliance with the law. It is contended that the author of a play which is put upon the stage is not protected until the copyright is completed by the deposit of the copies. The decision was reserved.

By an amendment to the California penal code it is provided that, in certain cases where the jury render a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity, the court may afterward order a jury to be summoned to inquire whether the defendant continues insane, and that in case the defendant shall be found still insane, he shall be confined in an insane asylum. Under this provision a jury was summoned to determine the mental condition of Mrs. Hannah Smythe, who shot General Cobb several months ago, and was

LIFE INSURANCE ROBBERY.

THE HE most gigantic system of robbery known to our times is life insurance. It is also the most despicable, for it takes advantage of the best impulses of human nature. The man who insures his life generally does it, not with the view of making money for himself, but for the purpose of making a provision for those whom he loves. We have no sympathy with men who fall victims to any of the organized schemes for robbing those who are in mad haste to be rich-stock-jobbing, lotteries, and the like but the law owes it to itself and to humanity | to compel life insurers to be moderately honest. These corporations are the creatures of the law, and the law ought to prevent their preying on the community.

Our attention has been freshly called to this matter by the information that a very important bill in relation to life insurance companies has reached a third reading in the lower house of our present legislature. If we are correctly informed, this bill authorizes the withdrawal of more than $3,000,000 deposited by the life insurance companies with the State insurance department as partial security for the payment of their losses. The newspapers have been so busy in declaring Mr. Beecher guilty beforehand, that they have found no opportunity to say a word against this monstrous job. The New York Graphic says: "As is usual with jobs of this sort, the newspaper correspondents have avoided saying any thing about it, although the bill affects the interests of every man who holds a life insurance policy issued by a New York company." Even the New York Times, which so plumed itself on its exposure of Tweed, fills its columns day after day with articles about the Beecher trial so indecent that its editor ought to be sent to prison for contempt, so anxious is it lest the cause of morality should suffer, but has not a word to say about this job. We well understand why the legislative correspondents of the metropolitan press are dumb on the subject, but we should suppose that the editors in chief would also want to be quieted. It is notorious that, at the commencement of every session, the metropolitan companies make up a formidable "pool" to fight off hostile legislation, and thus far it has answered its purpose effectually. We have no doubt that a quite numerous crowd of speculators derive a handsome income by introducing or threatening to introduce hostile bills, and being reluctantly bought off by the companies. We have vainly endeavored to induce the legislature to pass a bill compelling these companies to set up the defense of fraud or misrepresentation in the procural of the policy, within a reasonable time- a measure that is most reasonable and most necessary and we may keep on doing so, we presume, in vain; the lobby is too strong for the lawyers.

The proposed bill strikes at the very foundation of the solvency and security of these companies. Many companies now are in such condition that the only reliance of their policy-holders is on these deposits with the insurance department. Let this fund be diminished or impaired, and many insured will be deprived of their last resource for reimbursement. Of course, no earthly reason can be given why the bill should pass, at least none addressed to the intellect. It is a bold, shameless and outrageous swindle, and so it has reached its third reading almost unnoticed. It may pass; we suppose the insurance companies have money enough to corrupt all the newspapers and buy a sufficient number of legislators, and this job is worth a great deal of money to the companies. But we can say to the assemblymen who shall vote for this scheme, that they will be watched and marked, and the probability is that they will never get another chance for similar thieving; certainly not if the votes of the policy-holders of this State can prevent it. The system of life insurance robbery in this State has reached such dimensions that the public patience is exhausted. There are to-day in this whole country, in our opinion, not many above a score of solvent, reliable, honest life insurance companies. Scores of the companies were conceived in fraud and born in iniquity- mere contrivances to make fat salaries for certain drones and incompetents, and enrich a few directors. Many of these companies are confessedly bankrupt; many more are trembling on the verge of insolvency. Indeed, it has become a quite thriving business to organize companies on purpose to fail. Such a company gets all the risks it can, contests all its losses, and, suddenly dicovering that it can't pay, offers to reinsure its policyholders in some other "shyster" company. Some of its policy-holders surrender their policies for a trifling amount of cash

never by any possibility half the amount of the premiums they have paid; others let their policies lapse, and the result is that somebody makes a handsome profit by the operation. In a few years the new company finds itself unfortunately in the same predicament, and the same operation is repeated. This is no imaginary state of affairs; we have actually known it to exist. Then look at the extravagant management of many of these companies. In one company the running expenses are 46 per cent of its receipts! Such companies, of course, would like to get back their deposit from the insurance department, and divide that, too, among its officers.

Now, there are some things which our people will not stand. We are a patient people. We stood slavery until one dreadful day, when we cast it out and spat on it, as the desolate southern States know to their cost. We stood Tweed until he became excessively impudent and shameless, and then we crushed him. We have stood that TiltonBeecher trial thus far, and we suppose we shall con