tection of designs and protection of trade-marks are legislative novelties. The protection of mechanical invention has but recently overcome the attacks of the enemies of what are called the patent laws; and the great changes sought to be effected by the lord chancellor's bill prove that we have not yet arrived at a fixed set of principles in the matter. For example, this bill for the first time proposes a system of compulsory licenses based on payment of a proper royalty to the inventor; yet here the system is to be only partial. We are still to be oppressed by monopoly, compulsory licenses being the exception instead of the rule, as they ought to be, and in a few years probably will be. It is, therefore, clear that the law of protection of inventions is not yet in a mature state, and that when the lord chancellor rejects a class of inventions as not within the compass of the law, such rejection must be regarded as only temporary. The age may not yet be ready for legislation founded on a law of intellectual property; but at the pace at which the country now progresses in legislative change it would be foolish to despair of a speedy admission of the principle. other is copyright.' Substitute for 'books'' scientific discoveries,' and for 'copyright' 'a law to protect intellectual property,' or 'a law to protect inventive ideas,' and every word uttered by Macaulay applies exactly to the question under discussion. The only distinction between the cases is in favor of the projected law. Books are but the vehicle of instructionthe pipes by which ideas are carried from the springhead. There have been of late some very remarkable calculations of the time within which civilized man at his present rate of extravagance will consume the coal, the wood, and other essential products of the earth. Not only does the wealth of the soil, but even the earth itself present appearances of limited supplies of what man needs. But the unknown is boundless, and all the material unknown is knowable. Here scientific inventors, and they alone, can help us. But how can we expect their aid while we put them out of the pale of the law as thoroughly as we put them out of the pale of social consideration? Non-mechanical inventors are always regarded as visionaries by those people who pride themselves on being the stable, sober, sensible, practical members of the body politic; and the law, of course, follows suit. The law is not to blame. It can only wait on public opinion; and on this subwould stand still, are truths which may not be appre-ject public opinion is for the most part in a state of That inventors have made the world what it is, and that if inventors chose to shut their hands the world ciated as they ought to be, but which are really beyond denial. If any one will consider the 'creature comforts' which he uses in the course of every twenty-four hours, he will at once admit that his life is what it is by the exertions of 'inventors.' Surely, then, it concerns society that the class of men and the kind of labor by which discoveries are made should be encouraged. How is this to be done? Not by State remuneration, nor by patrons. The former is sure to be bestowed wrongfully; for the simple reason that the more novel and the more wonderful an invention is, the more certain it is to be rejected and even ridiculed by the practical men to whom is committed the charge of the public purse. The history of letters sufficiently condemns the patronage system. There remains the one and the true resource, namely, to admit the right of intellectual property; to acknowledge that the brain-worker has as much right to the produce of his brains as the hand-worker has to the produce of his hands; to enact a law protecting scientific inventions of a non-mechanical kind; and, without creating injurious and unnecessary monopolies, to impose on every one, using for profit the discovery of another, the duty of paying a proper royalty to the inventor. "When Macaulay, in 1841, made his famous speech on Sergeant Talford's copyright bill, he used these words: You cannot depend for literary instruction and amusement on the leisure of men occupied in the pursuits of civil life. You must not look to such men for works which require deep meditation and long research. Works of that kind you can expect only from persons who make literature the business of their lives. Of these persons few will be found among the rich and the noble. The rich and the noble are not impelled to intellectual exertion by necessity. They may be impelled to intellectual exertion by the desire of distinguishing themselves, or by the desire of benefiting the community. It is on men whose profession is literature, and whose private means are not ample, that you must rely for a supply of valuable books. Such men must be remunerated for their literary labor; and there are only two ways in which they can be remunerated. One of these ways is patronage; the crass ignorance and injustice. "What is the remedy for this state of things? How can society be roused to a sense of what is due to its own safety and its own progress? This is the question which a writer of no small pretensions has recently put and answered. Himself an inventor- and that, too, in a domain most nearly affecting every individual in the community-he has felt the mischief to which society has been exposed from the manner in which inventions are travestied, ridiculed and plagiarized. Seventeen years ago Dr. John Francis Churchill made the great discovery that the hypophosites of soda and lime, administered according to certain definite rules, and in absolute purity, prevent and cure consumption and scrofula-diseases which, up to that time, had wholly baffled the medical art. This discovery he arrived at, not by chance, but by careful and scientific induction. He at once gave his discovery to the world, and in 1864 he published a remarkable treatise in the French language, explaining most elaborately the method of treatment, and supporting his assertions by every kind of argument, and by an immense weight of testimony from his own observations, and from the observations of some of the most celebrated physicians in Europe. He has now published a work * in the English language, which must take rank among the most important books of our time from the originality of its views, the vigor of its style and the mass of information presented in it to the public concerning a subject painfully familiar to almost every family in this country. In this work Dr. Churchill not only expounds the principles upon which he bases his method of curing, and, as he avers, of 'stamping out' consumption, but he also seeks to establish the whole art of medicine upon a new foundation, with the hope of elevating it from 'a mere mass of confused and discordant technicalities' to the dignity of a positive science. He also states that, proceeding upon the same principles which carried him to the discovery of a *Consumption and Tuberculosis: their Prorimate Cause ana Specific Treatment by the Hypophosphites upon the Principles of Stachiological Medicine. By John Francis Churchill, M. D., Paris. London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1875. 'scientifically conditional specific for consumption,' he has arrived at the discovery of a series of compounds which act as specifics for all the inflammatory diseases of the breathing apparatus, of which bronchitis, pleurisy and diphtheria are the most fatal and the most common. "Now, here is a man who speaks with some authority on the subject; and he declares that the cavillers, the sycophants, and the communistic freebooters of science' have done their best to smother his first discovery under their feet. Practitioners have derided his discovery, but used it. Chemists have 'burked' it, but sold it under some other name. While in the great cities of the continent some of the most eminent physicians have loyally used it, and added their evidence in support of its efficacy, in England, with one or two brilliant exceptions, the inventor and his invention have been ignored. Now, says Dr. Churchill, I have made a further, and, if possible, more important, discovery. But I do not intend to reveal it to the whole world. I want to remedy the present state of things, the condition of public opinion and of the law, which allows a man to make a discovery of vital importance to the human race, and to get nothing for it but an endless tempest of controversy, abuse and misrepresentation. The remedy for this must come from the inventors themselves. They must sternly insist on their rights, undeterred by the clamor and whining cant about humanity of the intellectual communists.' The inventor must remember that, if he has duties as a member of soeiety, he is also specially a member of the noble army of inventors, and that whatever tends to encourage their efforts tends a thousand times more to the permanent advantage of the race. This is an obligation particularly incumbent upon such as have already proved themselves to be successful inventors, as their word will be of much greater weight. By this means inventors will in time wring from the hopes and the fears of society what they will ask in vain at the hands of its gratitude or its justice,' Dr. Churchill proceeds to say that he desires to set an example to those inventors who may come after him, and that if he initiates an action which shall end in establishing the "right of intellect"- that is, of real and true liberty of thought-the right of the most sacred and the most useful of all labor, the absolute and indefeasible right which every brain-worker has to the produce of his brain, just as the hand-worker has to the produce of his hands, he will, perhaps, have done a greater thing than in showing the way to mend any number of broken lungs.' In support of his right to adopt this course he calls in Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, the author of the well-known American work on 'Patent Law,' Mr. John Stuart Mill and Sir David Brewster as witnesses. "We do not know that we owe any apology for this somewhat lengthy digression into the realms of future law. But just at the time when the lord chancellor is inviting parliament to place the law protecting mechanical inventions upon a more satisfactory and reasonable basis, we have deemed the opportunity good for inviting attention to what is now being urged by inventors with reference to the right of protection for non-mechanical inventions. 'Strikes' and 'agitations' have been in modern times in this country the great levers for achieving great ends; and who knows but that a strike of the many-thoughted few' may not hasten legislation, which to the eye even of Lord Cairns is now hardly seen looming in the distance?'" THE BOOK NOTICE. Hall's Essay on the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Subject in the Sea Shores of the Realm. Second edition. By Richard Loveland Loveland, of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. London: Stevens & Haynes. 1875. HE law of the sea-shore is one of the most fascinating yet least developed of the branches of jurisprudence. This law is found principally in custom, and the adjudications are comparatively few. The principal authority upon the law of the sea-shore was for years the "Treatise de Jure Maris," published in 1787 by Francis Hargrave in his collection of Law Tracts, and the authorship of which is attributed to Lord Chief Justice Hale. The treatise of Lord Hale is a model in respect to brevity, clearness and continuity. But the lapse of time and social progress wrought considerable changes in the law, and Mr. Hall, in 1830, brought out his extended essay, taking Lord Hale's treatise as a basis. The present edition, which has just been published, contains annotations and references to tae later cases decided in the English, Scotch, Irish and American courts. An appendix has been added containing Lord Hale's treatise; the case of Dickens v. Shaw; Sergeant Merewether's speech in the Court of Chancery, December 8, 1849, upon the "Claim of the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests to the Seashore and the Soil and Bed of Tidal Harbors and Navigable rivers;" and forms used by the board of trade relating to the rights of the crown in the sea-shore. Hr. Hall's essay is a most interesting and valuable production. It is not written in the close, compact style of the American text-writer; but his statements are evidently the result of extended research and close observation. His criticisms on the adjudged cases are, perhaps, the most valuable parts of the work. In the chapter devoted to the discussion of the right to use the shore for bathing, the leading case of Blundell v. Catterall, 5 Barn. & Ald. 268, is scrutinized most thoroughly and the doctrine of the case vigorously attacked. That case held that there was no general right in the subject to frequent the shore for the purpose of bathing, the adjoining land being private property. The main point on which the decision turned seemed to be the absence of any authority in the books to sustain such a right. But Mr. Hall argues that men used to bathe and swim long prior to the written codes of Rome or England. "The custom preceded the law, and that which Roman law may have sanctioned by book, may have been already custom, i. e., common law in England.” But the court seem to have denied the immemorial custom of bathing on the sea-shore. Lord Tenterden declared that he "knew that sea-bathing was, until a time comparatively modern, a matter of no frequent occurrence;" and he added, "that he was not aware of any practice in this matter sufficiently extensive or uniform to be the foundation of a judicial decision." Mr. Hall characterizes this as a "singular" assertion; for the practice of bathing and swimming in the sea is known to exist "wherever man and sea-water are to be met with." He shows that the decision in Blundell v. Catterall put it in the power of every owner of the soil of the sea-shore to levy a tax ad libitum upon the bathers, not only at fashionable watering-places, but throughout the coasts of England, wherever such ownership of the shore can be proved. The entire book is masterly; and, although it does not furnish a complete treatise on the subject, it nevertheless abounds in sound reasoning, valid criticism, and interesting and valuable information. COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. THE following decisions were handed down in the New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday, March 23, 1875: Motion denied with $10 costs-Genet v. Davenport. Motion to correct remittitur denied - Mapes v. Snyder.- Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event - Lowrey v. The Western Union Telegraph Company; More v. Rand; Hale v. Patton; Heard v. The City of Brooklyn; First National Bank of Lyons v. The Ocean National Bank of the City of New York.-Order reversed without costs as to either party-Alexander v. Bennett. Judgment affirmed with costs-Campbell v. Burch; Develin v. Crary; Cesar v. Karutz; Booth v. Eignmire; Bissel v. Torrey; Brown v. Elwell; Myers v. Willard; Eten v. Luyster; Decker v. Stickles; Moran v. Darrin; Pardee v. Fish; Stowell v. Chamberlain; People ex rel. Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company v. The Commissioners, etc., of New York; People ex rel. Dry Dock, etc., Railroad Company v. The Same; People ex rel. Bleecker Street, etc., Railroad Company v. The Same; Dale v. The Brooklyn City, etc., Railroad Company; Bush v. Hicks.. Judgment reversed and new trial granted-Kerrains v. The People. CORRESPONDENCE. ADMISSION TO TILTON-BEECHER TRIAL. LITTLE VALLEY, N. Y., March 13, 1875. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: tutes the supersedure. In addition to this, the NOTES. THE opening address of Benjamin F. Tracy for the defendant in the Tilton-Beecher case has been published in pamphlet form by George W. Smith & Company, New York. The address was carefully prepared and presents in an eloquent and forcible manner the outlines of the defense.- Callaghan & Co., Chicago, have issued a "Digest of the Law of Railways," by John F. Lacey. This valuable work is a digest of all the decisions made by the courts of the United States and of the different States involving the law of railways. -The certificate of organization and by-laws of the Chicago Bar Association, with a list of officers and members, has been received. This association promises to establish and maintain the honor and dignity of the profession of the law, to cultivate social intercourse among its members, and to increase its usefulness in promoting the due administration of justice. The London Morning Post announces that Mr. A. Staveley Hill, M. P. and Q. C., has been appointed counsel to the Admiralty and Judge Advocate of the Fleet, in place of Mr. Justice Huddleston. Mordaunt case, which was decided on the 11th of March, came up for trial that morning before a special Tho SIR-Section 1 of 2 R. S. 274 (Edm. 284) reads: "The sittings of every court within this State shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same." How does it happen, in the face of this provision, that tickets are required of the people wishing to attend the Tilton-Beecher trial? It is stated in the Tribune, that policemen stand at the doors, and let no one injury in the English Divorce Court. No counsel apwithout tickets. Is the city court of Brooklyn excepted from the provisions of the Revised Statutes? A QUESTION IN THE LAW OF ADMINISTRATORS. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: Quere: An administrator exhausts the personalty, and pays creditors in full from his own means to a considerable extent beyond. He then sells real estate under surrogate's order, and the avails, after paying expenses and dower, will pay the remaining creditors but fifty per cent. Must the administrator be refunded all he has paid out, thus enabling him to prefer creditors, or shall he simply be subrogated to the rights of the creditors whom he has paid? Compare 3 R. S. (5th ed.) 194, § 45, with chap. 400, Laws of 1863. S. FOOTE. STATUTES RELATING TO PREFERRED CAUSES. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: DEAR SIR-The preferred causes act of February 26, 1875, amending the act of 1870, which amends that of 1860, does not notice, nor did the act of 1870, that the act of 1860 was superseded by the act chapter 218 of the Laws of 1865, so that we find ourselves with a double amendment of a superseded statute, while the amendment does not purport to affect the act which consti peared for Lady Mordaunt, and no evidence was given on the part of Lord Cole, the co-respondent. Mr. Justice Hannen, in summing up the case, said, that if the confession of Lady Mordaunt was to be taken, her guilt was proved; but there must be some corroborative evidence. The testimony showed that, during the absence of the petitioner in Norway, Lady Mordaunt was visited by Lord Cole, who stayed until unusual hours of the night alone in her company. There was also the significant entry in her ladyship's diary. Lord Cole had not thought fit on this occasion to deny the charge against him, and it was for the jury to decide whether it was proved. The jury immediately found that the allegations of the petitioner were proved. The attorney for Senator Chandler, on the 22d inst., sent witnesses before the grand jury for the purpose of obtaining a new indictment of Mr. Buell, the Washington correspondent charged with libeling the senator by a dispatch sent from that city to a Detroit paper. A new indictment is sought to meet defects which Judge Treat held that the first indictment contained; such as that the indictment was found not to charge the circulation of the libel in the District of Columbia. The first indictment was drawn up by Mr. Harrington, late Assistant District-Attorney. If Judge Drummond shall decide that Mr. Buell cannot be held under the indictment upon which he was arrested, an effort will be made to arrest him upon a new indictment, in case the grand jury finds a true bill. This second arrest will be attempted under the provision of the Poland law.―The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Black, collector, against the National Bank of the City of New York, holding that the incomes of banks, railroad companies, and other corporations for the last five months of the year 1871, were subject to an internal revenue tax of 2% per cent, secures to the government about $3,000,000.Mrs. Myra Clarke Gaines is at last taking active measures to execute the judgments obtained by her against the city of New Orleans. One of these, involving the sum of $140,000, has just been levied, and the New Orleans Times says, that "unless some arrangement can be made, a large sacrifice of the interests of the city and of the public is inevitable." Fortnightly Review upon the late Charles Austin, written by his intimate friend, Mr. Lionel Tollemache: "We learn from it that Mr. Austin did not voluntarily retire from the practice of his profession in 1847; his physical energies were so exhausted that he found himself unequal to the demands made upon him, and reluctantly retired. We are also informed that any estimate of the income which he made must be pure guess work, as Mr. Austin never ascertained himself what it was in any one year. Mr. Tollemache further states that Mr. Austin did what so few barristers do now, studied oratory; he was an admirer of Scarlett, whose art in concealing the defects of his case and his exercise of art was so remarkable. Austin found introductory pathos with a quiet termination very effective. He also found it of advantage to use the archaic and familiar diction of the bible. Modern oratory is simply longwinded-yards of print are supposed to compensate for conciseness and force." The Law Times says: "We are informed that the appeal from the decision of the judge of the Reading County Court, Mr. H. J. Stonor, in the case of Becke v. The Great Western Railway Co., has been abandoned. It will be remembered that, more than a year ago, in the case of Forsyth v. The Great Western Company, the same judge decided that the defendants were liable for neglect in not conveying passengers to their destinations at the times mentioned in their tables, unless they could show good cause for their failing to do so. To meet this case the company devised a new condition or by-law, viz., that the company should not be liable, 'except for willful neglect of their servants.' In the case of Becke v. The Great Western Railway Co., heard last October, Mr. Stonor decided, first, that the new condition or by-law was ultra vires, and, secondly, that if it was not illegal and void, the porters of the company or their superintendents were guilty of willful neglect in consequence of the porters not attending in sufficient numbers to unload and load luggage at the Reading station, whereby the train was detained several minutes, and the plaintiff lost a corresponding train of the same company at Twyford, and was com The will, dated November 20 last, of the Right Hon. John Baron Romilly, late of Comwell Road, Kensington, who died on December 23, was proved on the 6th instaut, by the present Lord Romilly and the Hon. Edward Romilly, two of the sons of the deceased, the executors, the personal estate being sworn under £25,000. The testator bequeaths to his daughter, the Hon. Sophie Romilly, £6,000; to his son, the❘ Hon. Arthur Romilly, £5,000; and to Mary Tyler an annuity of £12. He recites that he has already given to his eldest son, William, the present peer, certain landed property; to his son, the Hon. Henry Romilly, £5,000; and has made settlements on his children who have married; he accordingly leaves the residue of his property between his sons living at his death and his said daughter Sophie.--An English writer says: "I am all the more surprised to find that I am still the only man who believes in an avenging Providence, when I notice how often it finds us out. Lord St. Leonards has just died, a comforting example of this. One of the finest lawyers that ever lived (for the name of Sugden was one to conjure with), his greatest and most cherished principle was the duty of every man to make a will. He even went beyond this, and believed that every man ought to know how to make it; and he wrote a book to bring that knowledge within every-pelled to take a fly to complete his journey to Henley. body's reach. He himself made for himself a will, which he cherished as the greatest of his works, and which he was wont to read to his family whenever he discovered in them a demand for improving literature. This will was kept in a kind of sacred ark, which was an object of reverence and awe to many generations, and it was looked to as the greatest monument of the family. When, therefore, he died, it was thought hardly worth while to read the will, since everybody knew what was in it. In deference, however, to the common prejudice for regularity, the ark was opened, when, to the stupefaction of all, there was no will to be found, neither has any been found to this day. It is enough to drive all the conveyancers in England into lunacy." The latest rumor is that the will of Lord St. Leonards has been buried with him in the pocket of his dressing-gown. In a case before Vice-chancellor Malins last week, it appeared that every judge of first instance on the equity bench had held briefs. The costs in the case were said to amount to £10,000.- The Law Times thus refers to an article in the current number of the The defendants were, therefore, liable to the plaintiff for the expense of hiring such fly. The case for appeal was settled in December last, and stood for hearing, it appears, before the Court of Queen's Bench last term, but the railway company have been advised by Mr. Manisty, Q. C., and Mr. Wightman Wood to abandon it. Mr. Stonor's decision may therefore be regarded as established. The lord chief justice of England lately presided at the inauguration of the new lecture rooms of the Manchester Athenæum and delivered an address, dwelling upon the pleasures of literature to the lawyer and the man of business. In the course of his address he quoted Cicero, who says: "These things nourish and strengthen youth; they are the charm and comfort of age. In prosperity they are fortune's best endowment; in adversity they become our refuge, and in affliction our solace. They delight us at home, they hinder us not abroad. They abide with us by night as well as by day. They are the companions of our travel, and when we retreat from the world the faithful companions of our solitude." 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. Communications on business matters should be addressed to the publishers. The Albany Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, APRIL 3, 1875. CURRENT TOPICS. THE Lord Chancellor of England has withdrawn the Judicature Amendment Bill, having expressed his disappointment at finding that the measure was threatened with serious opposition in both houses of parliament. Under those circumstances he said the government felt obliged to abandon the measure. Lord Selborne, who was one of the chief originators of the new judicature scheme, expressed his dissatisfaction, and other members of the House of Lords were of the opinion that the bill should have been pressed. The Duke of Richmond while regretting the action of the government nevertheless stated in mitigation of the course pursued, that with respect to Scotland and Ireland with which the amendment bill dealt, it should be remembered that Lord Moncrieff and the late Chancel lor of Ireland were opposed to the bill. Lord Granville said no reason had been given to show an imperative necessity for withdrawing the bill, and he should like to know whether there was to be any further legislation on the subject and whether the original 'judicature bill which takes away appeals from the House of Lords in all English causes was to come into operation. The Lord Chancellor said that he would give notice on that point as early as possible. No measure of such importance as the judicature act has been before the British parliament in many years. The sudden withdrawal of the amendment to the act taking away the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, in Scotch and Irish appeals, excites universal comment. The London Law Times says, "we cannot but view with unqualified regret the concessions to the reactionary party which Lord Cairns has thought proper to make." The Solicitor's Journal says, that if the government desires to retrieve its position, inevitably damaged as it has been by the withdrawal of the bill, it will come forward with a proposal to create a "strong, single, satisfactory court of last appeal, which shall unite the judicial eminence of the House of Lords to the convenience of procedure of the Judicial Committee, and surpass both in the completeness and symmetry of its representative character." A large number of schemes are proposed, and there seems to be a total VOL. 11.- No. 14. lack of unanimity among those who shape legislation on such matters. The result will probably be the retention by the House of Lords of its past jurisdiction, or a modification of the plans proposed in which the House of Lords shall constitute the principal part of the appellate court. In the case of Miner v. Hoppersatt the United States Supreme Court considered the question whether, under the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of a State, is a voter in the State, notwithstanding the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State confine the right of suffrage to men alone. Chief Justice Waite, who delivered the opinion of the court, said, that the right of suffrage is not made one of the privileges of the citizen. The United States has no voters, and no one can vote for national officers without being competent to vote for State officers. The elective officers of the United States are chosen directly, or indirectly, by the voters of the States. The Chief Justice held that the right of suffrage was not co-extensive with the right of citizenship, for if that were true the provision of the constitution which gives citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States would entitle the citizens of each State to vote in other States pre cisely as the citizens of those States did. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did that of minors. The court was unanimous in the opinion that the constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage on any one, and that the constitution and laws of the States giving that right to men alone are not void, as being in conflict with the federal constitution. A uniform system of law reporting has been provided for in India by the passage of an act in the Indian Legislative Council "to diminish the quantity and improve the quality of law reports." For several years the law reports of Madras and Bombay have been published under the direction of the courts; and in Bengal a system analogous to that existing in England of a Council of Law Reporting, has prevailed. The government, under the new act, undertakes the publication of the reports, and the reporters will be under the orders of, and paid by, the government. The chief reporter has the immediate supervision of the reports, and all decisions published under his sanction will be binding on all the courts throughout India. It is stated that there is much opposition to the new measure, that the judges of the Bombay High Court protest against it, and that the general feeling is decidedly unfavorable to it. |