« PreviousContinue »
fully; held, that, there being no charge of dishonesty, the publication was not libellous.”
Mr. Townshend's work is comprised in seventeen chapters, in which the following subjects are successively treated : language as a means of effecting injury; how one may affect another by language; a description of rights and duties, of wrongs and their remedies; the gist of an action for slander or libel; wrongful acts, and the elements of a wrong; publication and the publisher, the construction of language, and what language is actionable. There is then a chapter devoted to the defences which may be made ; another on corporations in connection with this branch of law; one on proceedings and one on parties in an action; three on pleading, and two on evidence. All that is essential to a knowledge of the law of slander and libel, seems to be contained in this comparatively small volume. The reader will find in it a vast storehouse of learning easily accessible, owing to a very comprehensive index, and several useful tables of reference.
A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which rest ypon the Legislative Power
of the States of the American Union. By Thomas W. COOLEY, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Michigan; and Jay Professor of Law in the University of Michigan. Boston: Little, Brown, & Company. 1868.
It is not often, even in these days of multiplied text books, that we find a judge of a Supreme Court, while occupied to the full with the high duties of his office, willing to discharge the debt he owes to his profession, by the laborious preparation of a legal treatise. We heartily wish that the same zeal which has produced the work before us, would animate others of that large class whose experience and various learning are exhibited only in the court room and the reports. The greater part of our text books are composed by young practitioners; and though among these are some of the best books that we possess, yet it is too often the case that the writer's chief qualifications for his task are industry and carefulness. These are good, in fact, indispensable; but they are not every thing. When we find, as we often do, evidences of the immaturity of what may be called the legal mind, we find ourselves reading what is in fact little better than a digest. When, on the other hand, there is, from the begining to the end, the mark of a familiarity with the subject matter, existing in the mind of the writer, previously to and altogether independent of the special acquisitions necessary for the proper production of a good text book, we are no longer, as it were, jumping from stepping stone to stepping stone, making our way over the disjointed cases as best we may, but we are marching on a regularly made highway; and, if the road be rough in places, we at least have the comfort of knowing that it is the best that can be made.
Such a work is this treatise of Judge Cooley's. It is a purely legal work. No political objects lure the writer from the sober business of expounding the law. He devotes himself principally to an examination of those questions of constitutional law which arise under the Constitutions of the various States, – not under that of the United States, — consequently, this book is by no means a new edition of Judge Story's work; and though it is more akin in its plan to the treatises of Mr. Sedgwick, yet it covers more ground than these books, mean the same ground for mere practical use; for, as I shall presently explain, this is the prevailing purpose of the book; and I do not profess to have imitated the free discussion, criticism, and comparison of authorities, which are so characteristic of the well-known work of Mr. Sugden (or, as he is now better known, Lord St. Leonards). Without, for the most part, undertaking to weigh and balayce conflicting decisions, or to pursue the fine threads of distinction which run through opposing cases and judgments, I have endeavored to present in a compact form the law as it is, in the shape of the English and American authorities: usually accompanied, where there is a serious conflict in the cases, with a general expression of opinion as to the prevailing rule upon the particular topic of discussion. It has always seemed to me peculiarly impracticable, in an American text book, for the writer to advance any proposition of his own as the nature of the responsa prudentum' of the Roman law, or, in other words, as the law, authoritatively eliminated from the opposing cases; because, in each of the United States of America, the decisions of its own court are the controlling rule; and if, in a treatise designed for national use, the author should deduce an oracular conclusion from the concurring cases in a majority of the States on one side, that conclusion would not be law in the minority of States, whose courts agree on the other side. While, therefore, the highest respect is due to the private opinion of such a writer as Lord St. Leonards, and many of our American commentators, upon any controverted point, it is, after all, but an opinion, the value of which, in any particular locality, is best tested by a summary statement of the decided cases upon which it rests."
Many important additions have been made to this edition, but there is yet some lack of thoroughness in the collection of authorities, and some inaccuracy in citation. For instance, we have taken down a couple of volumes of the recent reports of Mr. Hilliard's own State, the 10th and 11th of Allen. On the 239th page of the 10th volume we find the highly important case of Goldsmith v. Guild, on time's being of the essence of a contract. This case is not cited in Mr. Hilliard's volume; and, by the way, the earlier case of Richmond v. Gray, 3 Allen, 25, which bears on the same question, though cited in the present volume, is cited to another point.. Opening now the 11th of Allen, we find on page 342, in Teaffe v. Simmons, a valuable discussion on payment to an auctioneer. No trace of this case is to be found in these pages.
Again, let us look at the late English cases, for instance the first volume of the Chancery Appeals, and the first volume of the Equity Cases in the Law Reports for 1866. Mr. Hilliard does not seem to be aware that each monthly part of the Equity Series of the Law Reports contains portions of two separate volumes, one called Chancery Appeals, cited Ch., and another Equity Cases, cited Eq., and he cites cases by the parts, which are always to be separated and bound in different volumes. Thus on p. 222, we have Hume v. Pocock, Law Rep. (Eng.) Eq. March, 1866, p. 422; ib. July, 1866, p. 378, when it ought to be, Law Rep. 1 Eq. 423 ; s.c. Law Rep. 1 Ch. 379. So on p. 78, Mortimer v. Bell, Law Rep. (Eng.) Jan. 1866, p. 9, should be Law Rep. 1 Ch. 10; so, also, on p. 302, Moore v. Marrable, Law Rep. (Eng.) Eq. March, 1866, p. 216, instead of Law Rep. 1 Ch. 217. It will be observed, too, that in all these cases the page is given one out of the way; a trifle, but a trifle which shows carelessness. In spite of these blemishes, which a little attention and system would rectify, Mr. given, but Forms Nos. 14 and 26 do not confer a joint authority. — In re Phelps, Caldwell & Co., 1 B. R. 139.
Only the bankrupt or a creditor can appear by attorney. — In re Michael W. Fredenburg, 1 B. R. 34.
“ The register cannot inquire into the authority given to an attorney.- In re William D. Hill, 6 Int. Rev. Rec. 51; s.c. B. C. R. 18."
The sources from which cases have been taken appear to be The American Law Register; The American Law Review; The Weekly Bankrupt Register; The Gazette and Bankrupt Court Reporter; and The Internal Revenue Record.
Appended are the orders, rules, and forms, as indicated in the titlepage.
Such a book is much needed, and if the execution of the work is as good as the plan, which we have no reason to doubt, but which can only be told by use, the profession will have reason to be grateful to Mr. Bump.
The Civil Service. Report of Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, from the Joint
Select Committee on Retrenchment, made to the House of Representatives of the United States, May 14, 1868. Together with the Testimony before the Committee on the Measures proposed by them, and the Speeches of Mr. Jenckes, Jan. 29, 1867, and May 14, 1868. Washington: Printed at the Congressional Printing Office. 1868.
The civil service of the United States, the great body of subordinate functionaries to which is intrusted the practical working of our executive departments, our custom houses, and the whole internal machinery of our National Government, has long been in a state which has excited the sneers, the reprobation, the amazement of all foreign nations. Hundreds of thousands are annually paid, and millions of money are intrusted to a set of men whose appointments are merely a matter of Government patronage, constituting the spoils of office of which we have heard so much. There is no system of examination, whether competitive or otherwise, into their fitness, no organized methods of promotion, whereby age and experience shall have their proper recompense in increased authority and compensation, and no security that a faithful and valuable servant of the public shall be retained in its employ. In fact, this last sentence might seem ironical, when it is notorious what Mr. Jenckes's report brings out in fiery characters, that for thirty-five years' official existence has been absolutely dependent on what is called good service to the party. But we do not believe it is generally known, how entirely and completely Andrew Jackson is responsible for this departure from the principles of all his predecessors; even Jefferson, who, though he made many more removals than either Washington or Adams, made a solemn and frequent assertion that they were all for cause, and none for partisan merits or demerits. The system under which we now groan was wholly the invention of General Jackson; and, in testimony of this, the Committee preface their Appendix of evidence with a most pregnant extract from Parton's “Life,"one avowedly written in praise of the “ Hero of New Orleans."
Now, to remedy these evils, the Committee proposed successively two bills, one in the last Congress, and one in this. The latter, which was crowded out by the useless legislation or non-legislation of last summer, will come up at