« PreviousContinue »
the sheriff and his deputies ; but Mrs. Bradwell's thoughts follow the teapot into its proper sphere, and she adds, “ and Mrs. Beveridge, upon the receipt and use of the beautiful teaset."
It is hard, sometimes, not to smile at a little air of dogmatism which pervades the periodical; but this, if not strictly legal or logical, is, at any rate, charmingly feminine.
After all is said, however, this undertaking of our sister Bradwell, if we may so venture to call her, shows no mean ability; and, above all, it shows good, hard, honest, useful work. We admire her pluck, and we wish her all success.
She has begun at the right end; and we commend her example to those Eastern women who so volubly proclaim that they are the equals of men : let them prove it, as their Western sister has done; let them turn to, and show that they, too, can do a man's work.
Bellewe's Cases temp. Ric. II. “Les Ans du Roy Richard le Second collect
ensembl' hors de les Abridgments de Statham, Fitzherbert et Brooke per RICHARD BELLEWE de Lincolns Inne. 1585." Reprinted by Stevens & Haynes, London.
No series of the Reports in the English courts of common law is perfect without a copy of this curious little book, the original edition of which is so rare as to be hardly known to most of the profession, except by the law catalogues; and those who are interested in legal history and antiquities will thank the publishers for making it accessible to them in the present attractive form, through the law libraries at least, even if the subscription price of three guineas should deter them from buying copies for themselves.
But its language and abbreviations are so unfamiliar at this day, that inaccuracies in printing much impair its value; and we regret to be obliged to say, that the statement in the announcement of the proposed publication, that the utmost care will be used to insure the correctness of the text,” is not borne out by the annexed specimen of the title and one other page.
Upon the first sight of this titlepage, we were much puzzled by the words immediately following the name of the book, “ Quelq. un table a 7 annexe." Quelque is the same word as in modern French, meaning "some or “any," and in this place is quite meaningless. Upon referring to the original edition, the word proved to be Ovesq." Ovesque is an old form of “ avec," “ with ; " and the line in question is simply “ With a table annexed to it.” This mistake of Q for O can hardly have been accidental, for it is repeated on the last line of the other specimen page, and is the less excusable, because another like form of the same word, “ove," occurs twice upon that page. The use of u and t, interchangeably, increases the importance of accuracy in the other letters. Besides other minor errors, we find also “ bâs” for “bñs," "biens” or “goods ; " and
non allocat,” without the mark of abbreviation over the last letter, to indicate non ollocatur; and Belknap, C.J., in equal disregard of the Bible and the Latin Grammar, is made to say, Si hic non esset malefactor non tradidissemus cum tibi. The word in the original edition, as in Fitz. Ab. Hostler, 7, from which the case is taken, is plainly eum. John xviii. 30.
We hasten to call attention to these errors, in the hope that it may not be too
SUMMARY OF EVENTS.
UNITED STATES vs. JEFFERSON DAVIS. — The Circuit Court of the United States at Richmond, Va., Chief Justice Chase and Judge Underwood sitting, has lately heard and considered the bearing of the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, upon the proceedings against Jefferson Davis for treason. The question was raised in the following manner. Mr. O'Conor, of New York, and Mr. Ould, of Richmond, counsel for Davis, filed a motion to quash the indictment, accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that Davis, previously to the late Rebellion, had held the office of member of Congress, and, as such, had taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States ; and, as reasons for the motion, assigned that the effect of the third section of the amendment was to prohibit the infliction of any penalty against persons in that predicament, except that of disqualification for office named in the section.
This section is as follows : “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who — having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States — shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability."
Mr. Dana, of Massachusetts, Governor Wells, of Virginia, and Mr. Beach (United States Attorney), appeared for the Government. Mr. Dana objected, that there was no foundation for the motion, as there was no averment in the indictment that Mr. Davis had held an office or taken an oath named in the amendment, and that the want of such averment could not be supplied by affidavit, the facts alleged in the affidavit being traversable. The only regular mode would be for the defendant to plead the facts specially. The court sustained this view. Mr. Dana said, that, as these facts were notorious, and the plea, with its subsequent proceedings; would cause delay, he thought it becoming in the Government to assist an immediate decision of a question preliminary in its nature, and of a high constitutional character. The affidavit was then withdrawn by the defendant's counsel, and a paper filed by the United States Attorney, to the effect that, for the purposes of hearing this motion, the court might consider the fact