while a student, and spending his nights in study and reading. It is related that in 1851 Judge Daly met the Duke of Wellington in England. "You are much too young," said the Duke to him, "to have reached a high place on the benchmuch too young." "I owe my position," replied Judge Daly, "to one of those accidents of fortune to which your Grace owes so little." I recall my criticism," said the Duke, grimly; " you are doubtless where you belong." This instance of tact and readiness may be coupled with Humboldt's tribute to the universality of Judge Daly's intellect and knowledge: This man of high character and intellect is not wanting in a lively interest for the fine arts and even for poetry. I have led him from conversations on slavery, Mormonism, and Canadian feudalism to the question so important to me-whether anything can be expected from the elegant literature of a nation of which the noblest productions have their root in a foreign country." As a scientist Judge Daly's attainments were of a high order; he was President of the American Geographical Society for thirty-six years, an honorary member of the London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg Geographical Societies, and an officer or member of many American scientific bodies. As a judge he served continuously for forty-two years-the longest judicial term of service recorded in this State. A list of merely the important decisions rendered by him would indeed be a long one; notable among them as still forming an important part of law interpretation were those relating to the nature of the law of eviction, the statute of frauds, the origin of surnames, the legal definition of a hotel, the law of trademarks, the law of telegraphs, the law as to fraudulent fees, the appointment of Police Justices by the Mayor of New York, and others of local or State moment.

multiplying signs that the leaders of Tammany Hall are in danger of losing their following, have produced a sudden change in the city officials. They are now one and all in favor of the municipal ownership sanctioned by the voters, by a majority of three to one, in 1894. Corporation Counsel Whalen, whose refusal to approve the contracts prepared by the Rapid Transit Commission has kept matters at a standstill for a year, now writes the Commission that the city is financially able to undertake the work, and offers all the assistance in his power to expedite it. He makes various suggestions as to how the plans should be altered so as to give city officials control of the condemnation of property, so as to conform with new laws providing for a living wage to all workmen on public works, so as to provide for electrical and other subways within the proposed tunnel, and so as to serve an important section of the city-between the Brooklyn Bridge and South Ferry

now unprovided for. The Commission has replied, expressing its readiness to accept at once the changes required by the new labor laws, and to make later, with the consent of the Legislature, the changes requisite for subways and extra lines; but pointing out rather sharply that the attempt to make all the changes before giving out the contracts would greatly delay work, and that the proposal of the Corporation Counsel to begin the work in the sparsely settled region at the northern extremity of the road would make any revenue impossible until the work was nearly completed. The Corporation Counsel, however, is reported as expressing pleasure with this reply, and renewing his assurance to the public that no further hitch will be tolerated. The public hopes that these assurances will continue to be as unqualified when the fall elections are over and the possibility of independent political movements is less imminent.

There can be no further question of reprisals of any kind. Hence, I repeat it, the incident is closed. I ask you, and, if it were necessary, I should command you, to forget the past in order that you can think solely of the future. With you, and all my comrades, I proclaim "Vive l'Armée," which belongs to no party, but to France alone. GALLIFET.

The italics are our own. No wonder that the order has been severely criticised by the Dreyfusards. General de Gallifet's apologists, however, interpret it as the purest patriotism, and as the evidence of a desire to do the best thing for all France, not for a part of it. Its only redeeming feature is the fact that it does not actually place any obstacle in the way of legal measures which the ex-prisoner may take towards rehabilitation. Anti-Dreyfusards naturally interpret it as a public confession of their power. The editorials in such extremist papers as the "Gaulois" welcome General de Gallifet to their ranks. The other event was the final capitulation of Guérin, the anti-Semitic leader, who for six weeks had been unaccountably allowed to defy the Government's authority. Last week, however, the Government seems to have realized the necessity of a backbone; it established in each street leading to Guérin's barricaded house lines of policemen, then a double row of mounted municipal guards, then another cordon of police, then a double hedge of infantry, and, again, within twenty yards of the fort, another row of infantry, while in a semicircle in front of the house itself was arranged another row of municipal guards. When this military mountain moved, the " ridiculous mouse" came forth. It is a pity that a Ministry which began its career by acts of such undoubted bravery and good sense should now allow its record to become clouded.

who has experienced many woes, domestic as well as political. It is perhaps not too much to say that his precious life alone keeps Austria-Hungary together. If he should be succeeded by such inferiors as the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the presumptive Crown Prince, or, in case of the Archduke's continued ill health, by the Archduke Otto, the high-spirited Germans on the one hand, and the higher-spirited Slavs on the other, would doubtless break away from such control. In short, the Austro-Hungarian Empire is in a state of transition, a condition far above any mere question of "Ausgleich" (or the respective proportion of taxation falling on Austria and Hungary), the anti-Jew demonstrations, the Socialist unrest, or the religious contentions. With all these questions, however, Count Thun and his colleagues have been battling by an administration of government through imperial decrees. His resignation shows the failure of that method of government as well as the seeming impossibility of terminating the parliamentary deadlock in the Reichsrath, for the present at least. If Count Thun's successor convokes the Reichsrath, it is to be hoped that its members will show a greater degree both of intelligence and of restraint than has characterized that body in recent years.

Venezuela's Revolution

in

Last week's despatches from Caracas indicate that the new revolutionary movement Venezuela is assuming formidable proportions. The principal leader of the insurgents, General Cipriano Castro, was lately defeated as a candidate for the Governor of one of the provinces, and lays his defeat to President Andrade. United with him is General Hernandez, who was the opposition candidate to Andrade in the last election for the Presidency. The insurgents' forces have captured the important town of Valencia, and thence have advanced half-way to Caracas, the capital. The Government forces have been pushed forward toward the enemy's camp, and President Andrade expresses the usual full confidence in being able to easily crush the insurgents, but the insurrection has already made not a little headway. It is understood here that President Andrade is generally acceptable to the

the friends and enemies of General Crespo, has its strength chiefly in the remoter mountain provinces. An American warship, the Detroit, is now at the port of Guayra, and will watch the situation in the interests of American citizens in Venezuela.

The London "Times "

A book has recently appeared in this counand Lord Rosebery try entitled "Appre

ciations and Addresses of Lord Rosebery," which has an interest other than that of its high intrinsic merit, of which we have already spoken. In it appear reports of certain speeches delivered by the English ex-Prime Minister and taken from the columns of the London "Times." When the book appeared in England, the proprietors of the "Times" applied for an injunction to restrain Mr. Lane, the publisher, from further including these reports in the book, as infringing the law of copyright. The judge's interpretation of the law upheld this view, declaring that the "Times" was entitled to the injunction because the reporter of a speech establishes a copyright in his report by publishing it under a general or special copyright notice, and this copyright passes to the proprietor of the reporter's newspaper. It is said that Mr. Lane has now taken his case to a higher court, thinking that equity will conquer the literal interpretation of the law. For the present, at least, the decision arrived at by Mr. Justice North must stand. It is exciting considerable comment everywhere. Of course if Lord Rosebery had written out his speeches and copyrighted them, the "Times" would have had no case; nor would it, perhaps, if Lord Rosebery had printed his speeches as coming only partly from that newspaper and partly from another. It is understood, however, that, in the case of extemporaneous addresses, their ownership passes with their delivery from the speaker to the public, while a shorthand reporter may copyright his report. Under these circumstances it might be wise for an orator contemplat

We propose in this article to restate the Transvaal question in order to make the question itself clear to our readers rather than to advocate either the British or the Boer side. For, as in most questions, there are two sides, and something to be said for either side. We believe that there is no question as to the facts as we report them here; the only question is as to their interpretation and the application of sound political principles to them.

Prior to 1834 the Boers, a Dutch people, were residents of a South African colony of Great Britain. Their British citizenship and responsibility to Great Britain were questioned by no one. Previous incidents, co-operating with race prejudice and that antagonism so common between agriculturists (as were the Boers) and townspeople (as were the British) had created discontent among the Boers with the British Government. It culminated when, in 1834, slavery was abolished throughout the dominion of Great Britain. The Boers did not believe in the abolition of slavery; they thought, and with entire justice, that the compensation paid them for their slaves was inadequate; and they seceded. They made no attempt to resist or throw off British authority; instead, they emigrated into the wilderness, where they would be free to manage their own affairs in their own way. The migration resembled somewhat that of the Mormons in 1846 from Illinois to Utah. In both cases there was a deep indignation against interference by government with a peculiar people; in both this indignation was deepened by, in the one case race, in the other case religious, prejudice in both cases there was an attempt to secure the right to be let alone by retreating into the wilderness; and in both cases civilization eventually overtook the emigrants who were endeavoring to escape from it, and

the controversy between the old and the new began again.

A brief description of these Boers is necessary to an understanding of the events which followed: in it we follow almost verbally, though condensing, Bryce's History. They were farmers, scattered over a vast expanse of country, seeing little of one another and less of the townspeople, ignorant, prejudiced, strongly at tached to the past, intolerant of any control. Their passion for independence easily degenerated into faction; their scattered habitations made them practically exempt from effective law; their narrow prejudices and their need of increasing lands brought them into constant conflict with the natives, whom they treated with a harshness which evoked constant protest from English missionaries, and embroiled them in local wars which at times threatened to involve the whole of South Africa. Paul Kruger, a boy of ten at the migration, now President of the Transvaal Republic, is a characteristic Boer, with all the Boer's courage, love of independence, dogged self-will, and provincial prejudice.

It is not necessary to trace here in detail the difficulties which constantly occurred between the Transvaal and the aboriginal tribes on the one hand and the British Government on the other. At length, in 1852, a convention was formed between Great Britain and the Transvaal or Boer Republic, by which the former "guaranteed to the emigrant farmers beyond the Vaal River the right to manage their own affairs, without any interference on the part of the British Government," with certain restrictions on that liberty prohibiting alliances with native tribes or the reestablishment of slavery within the Transvaal. This guarantee of independence was reiterated and confirmed in 1854.

That this independence did not immediately accomplish all that the Boers had hoped from it the Boer himself would be compelled to admit ; that it was a wretched failure the British representatives would confidently affirm. Wars were frequently raging between the natives and the Boers, in which shocking cruelties were perpetrated on both sides. The parallel might be found in our border experiences with Indian tribes, with this important qualification: the farmers would not or could not pay the taxes necessary to put an end to

But

these wars by reducing the tribes to submission. So the wars were almost continuous, and they were wars which kept the other colonies in a continual state of unrest if not of apprehension. The Republic itself became insolvent: paper money was issued, which of course depreciated, "no public improvements were made, no proper administration existed, and every man did that which was right in his own eyes.. The weakness and disorder of the Republic had become a danger, not only to the British subjects who had begun to settle in it, especially at the Lydenberg gold-mines, but also to the neighboring British territories, especially to Natal." At length, in 1877, the Transvaal was re-annexed to Great Britain by simple act of the British Commissioner at the Cape, approved by the Colonial Secretary in England. It was affirmed at the time that the majority of the inhabitants approved the annexation; it is certain that no resistance was offered and but little disapproval was expressed. it is also certain that no endeavor was made by a plebiscite to ascertain the will of the people. The advocate of Boer independence regards this annexation of 1877 as a high-handed outrage; the advocate of British sovereignty defends it as a necessary act for the protection of the entire Cape, and as democratic in fact, though confessedly undemocratic in form. The latter claim appears to us indefensible, since the annexation had scarcely been consummated before a petition against it was circulated which received the signatures of a large majority of the Boers. The discontent which Mr. Bryce thinks might have been allayed by a wise administration was aggravated by an unwise administration, and in 1880 the Boers proclaimed their independence, rose en masse, attacked the British troops scattered through the country, and won a decisive victory in a pitched battle at Majuba Hill. The campaign was a short one, lasting only from December, 1880, to March 23, 1881. But Mr. Gladstone, who was a democrat and an anti-expansionist, was in power; under his orders peace was made on terms which recognized the Transvaal State as a quasi independent State in possession of local self-government, but under the suzerainty of the British crown. This independence was reaffirmed in 1884 by an instrument which denied to