TO MY SISTER "MARY," MARCH 14, 1886.

The clouds are gathering, soon the night will come,
And we shall reach our long-expected home.
But from the mile post marked with "Seventy-three"
I hail you, sister, where you follow me;
Six stages back is all the space between,
For you, as I, the best of life have seen;

The most, if not the best, for who can know
Which is the best for mortals here below,
Youth, hope and fancy, or the sober close
Of life's long trials settling to repose,
Lit up by gleams reflected from that shore
Where wait our loved ones who have gone before?
They wait, they beckon, why should we withstand
The law that draws us to that happy land?
Then, cheerful, onward, let us hence pursue
The journey left that hides that land from view.

(Signed) J. P. BRADLEY.

ANSWER TO A REQUEST FOR A MOTTO.

DEAR SIR:

WASHINGTON, 19th Sept., 1887.

I know of no motto truer or more to be studied by a young man than the following:

Haec sunt Fortunae optima dona:

Sana mens in corpore sano,
Sedulus labor, probitas pura.

The best gifts of fortune are these:

Health of body, a sound understanding,
Pure integrity, industry untiring.

Yours truly,

(Signed) JOSEPH P. BRADLEY.

MR. ELLERY S. AYER,

Boston.

DREAMLAND.

I do not know whether I am singular, but I have a dream-world to which I often repair in sleep. I do not refer to those phantastic scenes and incidents which have no rational connection or cause, and which often attend our unquiet slumbers, and leave little trace behind, or any deep impression. My dreamworld is very different. It has generally the same phantasmagoria of surrounding objects and scenery, and is altogether a pleasant and homogeneous system of things. The singularity of it is, that it has this constant sameness after the lapse of years. The principal scene is located in a city, having a great resemblance to the City of Newark, where I formerly resided and in this underworld city I am always residing and have an office in the business part of the town, on the ground floor, fronting on the main street; but it is usually closed in consequence of my prolonged absences. I sometimes go in to look over some old and rare books that I keep there-books the like of which I never saw in my waking moments. One of these books is at least a yard in height, and half a yard in width, and at least four inches thick. The binding is very old and heavy, the corners being much frayed. The print is large and in double, and sometimes treble, columns on the page. It is hard to tell what the subject of it is. It contains chapters on law, and on chronology and on philosophy and on religion, and I find some very curious things in it, some of which, if I get time, I will relate. There are other old books of various sizes, some nearly as large as the one I have described, and thence ranging down to

ordinary quartos and royal octavos. I have generally some anxiety when I visit the office to see whether any of the books have been stolen. I sometimes find them disarranged, but generally put them in their proper places again. My principal trouble arises from the improvements that are often going on in the neighborhood. They have been building a row of brick houses in the rear, on the next street, and the lots join. I am constantly fearful lest the workmen will come on to my lot and get into my back windows and carry off some of my books, and then sometimes when I am absent, and one of my clerks, or young men, occupy the office part of the day, other lawyers come in and borrow the books; and some forget to return them. In going up and down the street, I meet many of my old acquaintances, long since dead, and have many interesting conversations with them. I visit this dreamland, sometimes as often as once a month, sometimes only after an interval of a year or more, but I always find it the same, and the old books the same. The impression of its reality has become so strong that even in my waking moments I sometimes imagine for an instant that I possess those old books somewhere, and do not recover from the hallucination until I begin to inquire with myself where they are.

WASHINGTON, January 27, 1889.

THE MARITAL RELATION.

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BRADLEY IN THE "NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW" for DECEMBER, 1889.

As marriage and the family institution constitute the foundation and chief corner stone of civil society, it is of the greatest moment that the marriage-tie should never be dissolved save for the most urgent reason. I cannot assent, however, to the doctrine that it should never be dissolved at all. Mere separation, though legalized, would often be an inadequate and unjust remedy to the injured party, who would thus be subjected to an enforced celibacy. This might suit the notions of those who regard celibacy as a virtue, but would fail to approve itself to those who take a wider and more charitable view of human nature. The divine law, which says, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder," immediately adds an exception, "save for the cause of fornication," showing what the law of nature dictates, that the case is not governed by any iron rule of universal application. The law, "Thou shalt not kill," has its necessary exceptions, a disregard of which would render it mischievous in a high degree. I know of no other law on the subject but the moral law, which does not consist in arbitrary enactments and decrees, but is adapted to our conditions as human beings. This is so, whether it is conceived of as the will of an all-wise Creator, or as the voice of humanity, speaking from its experience, its necessities and its higher instincts. And that law surely does not demand that the injured party to the

marriage vows be forever tied to one who disregards and violates every obligation which it imposes; to one with whom it is impossible to cohabit; to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does it demand that such injured party, if legally free, should be forever debarred from forming other ties through which the lost hopes of happiness for life may be restored. It is not reason, and it cannot be law, divine or moral, that unfaithfulness, or wilful and obstinate desertion, or persistent cruelty of the stronger party, should afford no grounds for relief. The most rigid creeds, to the contrary, have found methods of dispensation from the theoretical rule. And if no redress be legalized, the law itself will be set at defiance, and greater injury to soul and body will result from clandestine methods of relief. Yet so desirable is the indissolubility of marriage as an institution, so necessary is it to the happiness of families and the good of society, so pitiable the consequences that often flow from a dissolution, that every discouragement to such a remedy should be interposed. Not only should the Judge take every care to see that just cause exists, but that no other remedy is possible. No jugglery or privacy should be tolerated, however high in station the parties may be. Investigation of the truth should be thorough and open, and should be a matter of public concern, participated in by the public representative of the law. It should be regarded as a quasi-criminal process, if not accompanied with criminal sanctions. Only serious and even severe methods of administering the law will be sufficient t repress the growing tendency of discontented parties to rush into divorce courts.