DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

The above is a tolerably fair portrait of one who may be justly considered the most distinguished American lawyer now living. David Dudley Field was born in Haddam, Conn., Feb. 13, 1805. He is consequently now nearly eight-one years of age. He was graduated from Williams College in 1825. He studied law in Albany and afterwards in New York City, and was admitted an attorney and solicitor in 1828, and counsellor in 1830. He immediately entered upon an active practice. As early as 1836 he began in New York the agitation of law reform and the reform of remedial procedure, and for fifty years he has been the foremost champion in English speaking countries of the codification of the law. A code of civil procedure, drawn by a commission of which he was a member, and enacted in 1848 by the legislature of New York, has been subsequently adopted with little modification by many of the States, and has formed the basis of the sweeping law reforms which were enacted in England in 1873 and 1875. The history of his efforts in behalf of codification would be a history of codification itself in the State of New York. It would show that, owing to a blind and unreasoning oppositionVol. 21.-No. 25.

his efforts have so far been only in part suc, cessful. His crowning work in this regard was his draft of a civil code, presented to the New York legislature for the first time in 1865. Although it has been pronounced by the most eminent legal scholars in America and Europe to be a masterpiece of analysis, it has never been enacted in New York; but, if we are not mistaken, has been twice defeated by governor's vetoes, and twice by adverse majorities in the legislature. It was, however, enacted in California in 1872, and has furnished the basis of civil rights in that State from that day to this. The territory of Dakota followed the example of California, and we shall soon have the spectacle of a fourth State in the Union which is governed by a civil code. The first is Louisiana; the second is Georgia, whose civil code, prepared by Mr. Cobb in 1863, during the throes of the civil war, has remained the law of that State ever since; the third is California, and the fourth will be Dakota. Mr. Field has extended his efforts in behalf of the codification of the law to the subject of the law of nations, and is the principal author of an ideal international code submitted to a committee of jurists of various countries appointed by the British Association for the Promotion of Social Science, in 1866, of which committee he was a member. He is a member of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, and will attend the session of that body in Europe next summer. Though an octogenerian, Mr. Field is still in active practice. His eye is bright; his step is elastic; his voice is as tender and musical like that of a woman. His manner is, for the most part, conciliatory and urbane; but when crossed by an unreasonable adversary he is a very war-horse in debate. The stupid, malicious and even uncandid opposition to the codification of the law which he encounters in the New York Bar Association, and elsewhere, arouses in him a power of debate which reminds one of Tennyson's idealized King Arthur:

"In this heathen war the fire of God

Fills him; I never knew his like; there lives
No greater leader."

CURRENT EVENTS.

ABSENT HEIRS AND NEXT OF KIN.-Some two hundred visionaries assembled the other day in St. Louis to talk over the question of how to get possession of the modest sum of $800,000,000.00 said to be held by the Accountant-General of the English Court of Chancery for the heirs of what was called the Chase-Townley estate. The daily papers dished up to their readers two or three columns of each day's proceedings, interspersed with numerous portraits of the so-called "heirs," male and female. The fool-killer did not make his appearance, and all of them dispersed to their respective homes without physical harm and with undiminished "expectations."

THE NEXT MEETING OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.-We learn from private advices that the next meeting of the American Bar Association will again be held at Saratoga Springs. So far as we know, this is the only body of national reputation and importance which meets habitually in a little out-ofthe-way place where there are no newspapers capable of publishing its proceedings. At its last meeting a Saratoga daily paper contained, in the space of two or three inches, a notice of its proceedings for the preceding day, and in the same issue devoted two or three columns to a ball given by one of the leading hotels. The manner in which this body would be treated in Chicago or St. Louis is well illustrated by the handsome way in which the daily papers of St. Louis have treated the two annual sessions of the Cattlemen's Convention which have met here. A full page in each of the leading morning papers was devoted to the proceedings, and numerous portraits of the more conspicuous members of the association were published. As the American Bar Association carries on its work now, it proceedings do not reach or attract popular attention, except indirectly through its members.

THE PRESIDENT'S RECOMMENDATION TOUCHING THE RE-ORGANIZATION OF UNITED STATES COURTS.-The President in his annual message, referring to the recommendations con

tained in the report of the Attorney-General, submits the following: "The condition of the business in the courts of the United States is such that there seems to be an imperative necessity for remedial legislation on the subject. Some of these courts are so overburdened with pending causes that the delays in determining litigation amount often to a denial of justice. Among the plans suggested for relief is one submitted by the Attorney-General. Its main features are the transfer of all the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts to the District Courts, and an increase of judges for the latter; where necessary, an addition of judges to the Circuit Courts, and constituting them exclusively courts of appeal, and reasonably limiting appeals thereto; further restrictions of the right to remove cases from the State to Federal courts; permitting appeals to the Supreme Court from the courts of the District of Columbia and the territories only in the same cases as they are allowed from State courts, and guarding against an unnecessary number of appeals from the circuit courts. prove the plan thus outlined, and recommend the legislation necessary for its application to our judicial system." It remains to be seen whether this will have the effect of producing the needed legislation at the present session of Congress. Past Congresses have been shamefully remiss in this regard, and their remissness has afforded a conspicuous illustration of public men placing party interests above the public welfare. While the Republicans held the Presidency and the Senate, and the Democrats held the House of Representatives, no measure increasing the number of Federal judges could be got through, because the new appointees would inevitably be selected from the Republican party. that the Democrats hold the Presidency and the House, and the Republicans hold the Senate, we presume that the same reasons will control to prevent the needed relief. is a very great shame.

I ap

Now

It

REWARDING PARTIZANS WITH JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS.-The practice of rewarding political partisans with judicial appointments has been in vogue since the foundation of our government. The two great Chief Jus

tices, Marshall and Taney, were conspicuous illustrations of this. Marshall, as a politician, was the tool of John Adams; Taney, as a politician, was the tool of Andrew Jack

son.

Each had his reward, and each disappointed the process which elevated him to power, by establishing a distinguished judicial reputation. From first to last, Federal appointments to the judiciary have been almost entirely political. During the twentyfour years of Republican ascendency, there were but two or three exceptions to this rule, and they took place during the administration of Mr. Hayes. Keyes, appointed by Mr. Hayes to the judgeship of the Eastern District of Tennessee, was a kind of Democrat, though a member of Mr. Hayes' cabinet; and Hammond, appointed by Mr. Hayes to the same office for the Western Dictrict of Tennessee, was a mild Democrat, or a mild Republican, which ever way you might choose to classify him. Both have made good judges. Arthur's judicial appointments were the best which were made by any Republican President; but his appointees were invariably Republicans. The present administration came into power with many promises touching Civil Service Reform; but there has been a wide gap between the promises and the fulfilment, and there is not the slightest doubt that this administration will, in this regard, follow in the wake of its predecessors. During Grant's administration, the Supreme Court of the United States was "doctored" in the interest of party politics to secure a reversal of the legal tender decision. If there

ever was a time which justified the "doctoring" of that court with reference to a great constitutional question, it is now, when it has, by a bare majority, announced the doctrine that it is competent for the Federal Tribunals to take one of the States of the Union by the throat and prevent it from collecting its

revenue.

TRIALS OF PETTY FEDERAL OFFENCES BEFORE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS.-The President, in his annual message, takes hold of certain abuses in the administration of Federal justice in the right spirit. On one subject, which has been for years a matter of flagrant and notorious abuse-so much so as

to make men doubt at times whether they lived in a free country-he says: "In connection with this subject I desire to suggest the advisability, if it be found not obnoxious to constitutional objection, of investing United States Commissioners with the power to try and determine certain violations of law within the grade of misdemeanors. Such trials might be made to depend upon the option of the accused. The multiplication of small and technical offences, especially under the provisions of our internal revenue law, renders some change in our present system very desirable, in the interests of humanity as well as economy. The district courts are now crowded with petty prosecutions, involving a punishment in cases of conviction of only a slight fine, while the parties accused are harassed by an enforced attendance upon courts held hundreds of miles from their homes. If poor and friendless they are obliged to remain in jail during months, perhaps, that elapse before a session of court is held, and are finally brought to trial, surrounded by strangers, with but little real opportunity for defense. In the meantime, frequently, the marshal has charged against the Government his fees for an arrest, the transportation of the accused and the expense of the same, and for summoning witnesses before a commissioner, a grand jury and a court. The witnesses have been paid from the public funds large fees and traveling expenses, and the commissioner and district attorney have also made their charges against the Government. This abuse in the administration of our criminal laws should be remedied, and if the plan above suggested is not practicable, some other should be devised."

COMPENSATION OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS AND ATTORNEYS.-On this subject the President's annual message contains the following suggestions, which are worthy of careful attention: "The present mode of compensating United States Marshals and District Attorneys should, ir my opinion, be changed. They are allowed to charge against the Government certain fees for service, their income being measured by the amount of such fees, within a fixed limit as to their annual aggregate. This is a direct induce

ment for them to make their fees in criminal cases as large as possible in an effort to reach the maximum sum permitted. As an entirely natural consequence, unscrupulous marshals are found encouraging frivolous prosecutions, arresting people on petty charges of crime and transporting them to distant places for examination and trial, for the purpose of earning mileage and other fees; and District Attorneys uselessly attend criminal examinations far from their places of residence, for the express purpose of swelling their account against the government. Actual expenses incurred in these transactions are also charged against the Government. Thus the rights and freedom of our citizens are outraged and public expenditures increased, for the purpose of furnishing public officers pretexts for increasing the measure of their compensation. I think that Marshals and District Attorneys should be paid salaries, adjusted by a rule which will make them commensurate with services fairly rendered."

RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.-The Attorney-General suggests the advisability of building jails at each place in the country where United States Courts are held. The necessity of building a Government Penitentiary, where all persons convicted of United States offenses could be confined, is strongly urged. Such convicts, he says, could be employed in the manufacture of supplies for the Government, which work would assist in making the institution self-sustaining. He also suggests the propriety of erecting on the grounds adjoining the Department of Justice a proper building for the accommodation, in addition to that department, of the Supreme Court and other proper courts and commissions of the United States. The Attorney-General makes a number of other recommendations, among which are the following: That the fees of marshals in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming be doubled; that the salaries of marshals be revised; that the compensation of the United States attorneys for New Mexico and Arizona be increased; and that the compensation of

clerks of United States Courts in California be reduced; that attorneys and marshals be required to make returns by fiscal instead of

calendar years; that the accounts of chief supervisors of election be taxed in open court, under the inspection of the District Attorney; that the penalty for the punishment of persons resisting officers be made more severe; that increased provisions be made for the protection of United States witnesses; and that a suitable United States Jail be built at Fort Smith, Ark. The report closes with a brief statement of the Union Pacific Railway litigation, and says that a motion will be filed by the Government in the Supreme Court in a few days to advance the appeals on the dockets, so as to have a speedy determination of them. The Attorney-General adds that the motion will doubtless be granted and the matter disposed of at an early day.

BUSINESS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. The annual report to Congress of Attorney-General Garland gives a detailed and succinct statement of the operations of that department throughout the country during the past year, including the business of the Supreme Court, the Court of Claims and the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. During the year, 1,658 civil suits and 11,977 criminal prosecutions were terminated in the various United States courts, leaving 2,146 of the former class and 3,808 of the latter class pending at the close of the year. The aggregate amount of judgments rendered in favor of the United States in civil suits during the year was $677,783, and the amount actually collected on these judgments was $170,457, while $37,028 was obtained during the year on judgments rendered in former years for the United States and $144,452 was otherwise realized in civil suits. The aggregate amount of fines, forfeitures and penalties imposed during the year in criminal prosecutions was $481,756, and the amount of these fines, forfeitures and penalties collected during the year was $62,124, while $6,187 was realized on fines, forfeitures and penalties imposed in former years. The aggregate amount of court expenses paid during the year was $2, 874,733.

NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS.

INJUNCTION. [PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW -EXEMPTION LAWS.] INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTION OF A CLAIM IN ANOTHER STATE AGAINST A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF THE FORMER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING THE DOMESTIC EXEMPTION LAW.-It is well known that statutes exist in most of the Western States exempting the wages of laborers from attachment and execution. It is also well known that some of the courts have refused to give effect to the exemption laws of other States, in respect of citizens of other States happening to be within their limits.1 This has had a somewhat peculiar result in the case of claims against laborers employed by railway companies whose lines extend through several States-as, for instance, the Missouri Pacific Railway. A creditor of such a railway laborer, in Texas for instance, finding himself unable to collect his demand by the aid of legal process in Texas by reason of the exemption law of that State, sends the claim to a lawyer in Missouri, who at once brings an action by original attachment, summoning the Missouri Pacific Railway Company as garnishee. Now, the railway laborer is a thousand miles away and cannot come to Missouri to litigate the matter without losing his job, and the railway company cannot set up his right of exemption, since that is a right personal to the debtor, which cannot be pleaded by the garnishee. The maneuver is effective, and the exemption law of Texas is evaded, notwithstanding the fact that Missouri has a similar exemption law. This is an abuse of legal process, because it is contrary to a public policy which exists in both States and which is manifested by their legislation. But by what means can it be checked? This question has been answered in the case of Wilkinson v. Colter,2 recently heard in the Superior Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, before Webb, J. The learned judge holds that the railway laborer may have a remedy against his creditor by

1 Boykin v. Edwards, 21 Ala. 261; Morgan v. Neville, 74 Pa. St. 52; Newell v. Hayden, 8 Iowa, 140; Helfenstein v. Cave, 3 Iowa, 287; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. May, 25 Oh. St. 347; Contra, Pierce v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 36 Wis. 388; s. c., 2 C. I.. J. 377. 22 Kan. L. J. 202.

injunction; deciding, as we understand the case, and as the syllabus states, that "a citizen of Kansas may be enjoined from prosecuting an action in another State against another citizen of this State brought to subject the earnings of the latter to the payment of his debts, when by the laws of this State such earnings are exempt." The use of a writ of

injunction by a debtor to

prevent his creditor from collecting his debt, seems at first blush somewhat novel. But we live in an age of judicial progress, and this is certainly not more novel than the placing of a railway in the hands of a receiver on the petition of the corporation which owns it; and it is not unlikely that the ruling of the learned judge, if the case should get before the Supreme Court of Kansas, may turn out to be the law. He reasons the question well; points out the absence of any other remedy to save to the debtor a right conferred upon him by the law of the forum, and points out that, whereas the writ of injunction. acts only against a litigant party, there is no jurisdictional difficulty in restraining a party from wrongfully prosecuting an action in another forum. On this last point, we understand that there is a conflict of authority, and altogether the conclusion arrived at may be environed with more difficulties than would at first appear.

DOWER. [CONVEYANCE ESTOPPEL.] RELEASE OF DOWER NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH STATUTE NO ESTOPPEL.-In Mason v. Mason, it is held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that a wife in the lifetime of her husband, can bar her right of dower in no other mode than as prescribed by statute; and any conveyance of the right, void at law, cannot operate against her, by way of estoppel, in equity. "The instrument signed by the plaintiff," said Devens, J., "whether considered as a conveyance or as a contract, is therefore void at law. If such be the case, it cannot operate against the demandant by way of estoppel in equity. A court of equity cannot take jurisdiction to give effect to and recognize instruments, which under the statute law are inoperative. 994 The reason of the

81 New Eng. Repr. 106.

4 Citing Merriam v. B. C. & F. R. Co., 117 Mass. 244.