We cannot but warmly urge the recommendations of the president in regard to the passage of general laws The present scheme of introducing a law general in tone but only applicable to cities of a million inhabitants, is nothing more or less than calling a special act a general law. It is simply a scheme to give one city different legislation from another, it is vicious in its method, and is the worst possible kind of legislation.

We have repeatedly called attention in these columns to the fact that the Court of Appeals is overburdened with cases, and that the great number of appeals which it must hear, necessarily leaves a large amount of work on its calendar unfinished. The fact that there are so many cases remaining on the calendar at the end of each year, shows the unbusiness-like methods of sending so many cases before the court of last resort.

and no one could better express what the lawyer should be. While Dr. Depew advocates international arbitration and deprecates jingoism, it is sad to reflect that a large number of the so-called "statesmen" at Washington are waving their bloody words and flaunting their audacious utterances to the amusement and disgust of sensible people, and to their later ridicule and confusion. Mr. Depew says that the late civil war could have been avoided by international arbitration. This is a matter of contention and has little to do with the Venezuelan question. The war came, it is over, and as a precedent is of little value because inhabitants of the same household always carry on a fiercer combat; and as they can get at each other so easily, resort to force is very likely to occur. Nations like individuals, can be shown their duty after they have considered and have had time to reflect. Propinquity often leads to a combat which distance would prevent, for belligerents are oftentimes exhausted ere they reach the scene of trouble. The fellow who says "come on" is always fresher than the one who comes. Another condition in favor of arbitration is the increase of wealth and the corresponding desire on the part of individuals to accumulate. War has changed in certain aspects and instead of increasing the treasury of the victor, often depletes it.

The recommendations of the president in regard to the repeal of statutes by implication and contested seats in the Legislature, meet with our unqualified approval and we can not but strongly urge the reason which he has expressed in regard to "vicious and improper legislation." With these faults in our judicial and legislative systems, with a thorough appreciation of the many dangers which may result to the State and its citizens, why is it that each Individuals who had but little year we but try for slight alterations in our laws were formerly induced to fight by a de-. and regulations, and still permit new ones to be sire to acquire wealth, and such persons are added? The very fact that there was over 1000 statutes enacted in 1895, really must be now, if there are any of them, subservient to taken as an acknowledgment that much bad leg-ness-like methods. All this jingoism which is those who have accumulated fortunes by busiislation was put into the statute law of the State. With such leading men as were present at the meeting of the Bar Association, who recognized what is going on, there seems to be no excuse for its further continuance.

The address of Hon. Chauncey M. Depew on the subject of "Patriotism and Jingoism," was delivered before a large and appreciative audience on the first evening of the meeting. Of course the audience was pleased, and apparently the speaker was; but who would not if he could only have such a winsome manner and such charming address, a brass band and a large audience. No one, perhaps, better than Mr. Depew, understands fully the lawyer's duty

rampant is utter nonsense and the only regret sensible people have is that the Jingoes cannot

be turned loose at each other and treated much like so many snarling dogs. The thoroughbred never seeks a quarrel, and those who are respected are sought for, because of their ability to contribute to the enjoyment of others and to the wealth of the world. The subject of Mr. Depew's article is most proper and fitting at this time, was greatly appreciated and might properly be memorized by the so-called "statesmen." The maintenance of a principle of international law or the continuance of the policy of a nation should be observed by other countries and states. The enforcement of such principles is best when it comes from the

We may note the following limitations to the doctrine in its relation to Great Britain and the present dispute: (1) It is a mere doctrine of political formula and not a rule of international law. We have Calvo's authority for this, and even Wharton admits it. (2) Great Britain is itself an American power. What of Canada, Jamaica, Trindad, British Honduras, or British Guinea? (3) The doctrine was directed against the introduction of European "political systems" into America. Neither the making or control of a canal, nor the method of settling a boundary dispute with another American State, is the introduction of a "European political system."

ernment that a surprising transformation of this opinion is attempted to be enforced.

"When, after Waterloo, the Czar Alexander conceived the idea of restoring absolutist principles in Europe, and formed for that purpose his ill-omened Holy Alliance, the British government, which had borne the brunt of the wars against Bonaparte, utterly declined to take part in the new propaganda of 'sound principles of government.' Several congresses of the great powers were, however, held, and the affairs of various European States were interfered with for the avowed purpose of restoring arbitrary rule. At the Congress of Verona, it was actually proposed that force of arms should be resorted to in respect of the revolted colonies of Spain. Not content with

to the United States ambassador that the

British opposition should be supported by a United States protest. Adopting this suggestion, President Monroe issued his famous

message.

Writers on International Law have given ample warnings against the interference by one State in the affairs of others, except upon well-protesting, the British government suggested defined and recognized grounds, and the Monroe Doctrine, even where applicable, can scarcely be regarded as embodying such a ground. As Sir William Harcourt has forcibly said of intervention in his "Letters of Historicus" "It is a high and summary procedure, which may sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that in the case of intervention, as in that of revolution, its essence is illegality, and its justification is its success. Of all things at once the most unjustifiable and the most impolitic, is an unsuccessful intervention."

"The restrained language ofthe first edition of the Monroe Doctrine' gave little presage of its future fame. President Monroe declared, first, that America was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European colonization ; and, secondly, that the great powers of Europe should not pursue the project then attributed to them of extending their political systems to

While the Law Journal discusses the doc- America, or of endeavoring to control the trine in this manner:

political condition of the American colonies which had recently declared their independence. This was, on the face of it, nothing more than an American reiteration of the protest already raised by the British government against the absolutist propaganda of the Holy

formed, to reduce to subjection the revolted Spanish colonies.

"The vicissitudes of dogma might form an interesting series of chapters on the history of international law. Of these chapters the one which dealt with the bewildering transformations of the Monroe Doctrine could not fail to be instructive. This at the time of its pro-liance, and their intention, wholly or partially nouncement comparatively harmless and even necessary expression of opinion on the part of one American government has been expanded Even in this much milder form it is essential by the efforts of a series of American secre- to remember that the Monroe Doctrine has taries of state so as to be put forward as an never been accepted, either by a congress of excuse for claiming a veritable supremacy in the great powers, or by any one of these the affairs of the whole Western hemisphere. powers individually. It remains, what it alThere is a certain irony in the fact that it was ways has been, a mere expression of a policy the British government which suggested to which the United States government set itself President Monroe his cautiously-worded pro- to further. to further. As the prime minister has pointed test against any interference by the Holy Alli-out, the doctrine is no part of the law of ance to suppress the new Spanish American nations. What is President Cleveland's reply? Republics. Now it is against the British gov- An extraordinary attempt to show that it is a

criminal cases in New York and Brooklyn, and is designed to provide for a special class of jurymen where the case is important, or where, owing to newspaper notoriety, it is difficult to obtain a fair trial jury by the ordinary methods.

part of international law by a process of reason- under consideration before the judiciary coming that seems hardly to invite refutation.mittees of both houses. It relates to jurors in The Monroe Doctrine, says the president, is based on the just rights and claims of the United States. Every just right and claim is a portion of international law. Therefore, the Monroe Doctrine is a part of international law. The patent absurdity of this method of argument is its best refutation. International law - that is, the custom of civilized States-is the standard by which national claims are judged, and decided whether they are right or not. Again, the "balance of power" appears to the United States president as a fit parallel to the unilateral expression of United States policy. A much closer one would be the claim of Russia never acknowledged by Europe to the possession of Constantinople and the heritage of the Greek emperor.

It is, however, the development which the last fifteen years has imported into the Monroe doctrine which seriously threatens the peace of the world. The first expression is to be found in the despatches of Secretary Blaine in 1882, claiming United States exclusive jurisdiction over the Panama canal when completed. The British Foreign Office presented a firm front to an aggression which disregarded the treaty rights of the British under the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, as well as the treaty rights of France under its compact with the Columbian Government. Last year we had 'America for the Americans' put forward as an excuse for repudiating joint British control over the Nicaragua canal, and the Monroe doctrine was carried further. Now, the Monroe doctrine, under the manipulation of Secretary Olney, is expanded into a claim that the United States can insist on any European power which has a territorial dispute with any American State submitting the same to arbitration. Last of all, President Cleveland's astounding message invokes the Monroe doctrine as upholding the position that the United States Government is to constitute itself, without the consent of the European power, arbitrator, and to carry out its decrees by force of arms. It is impossible for the British Government to submit to such pretentions.

An extraordinary jury bill has been introduced in the Senate, and in the Assembly, and is now

Under the provisions of the act a special commissioner of jury, at a salary of $6,000 a year, is to be appointed for each city by the appellate division of the Supreme Court, and the judgment of this officer is to be conclusive upon the question whether the proposed special juror is free from legal exceptions or not. It has been said that certain justices of New York city favor the enactment of this measure; but it seems that this can hardly be probable after we read over the measure in question. It is constitutionally doubtful if the Legislature can grant any such power to the judges. While the Legislature may regulate the manner of empanelling of jurors, in criminal cases, it cannot change the law in such a way as to deprive persons of the right of trial by an impartial jury.

It is doubtful whether this right would not be abrogated if the competency of jurors should be in any essential particular finally or conclusively determined by one acting in the capacity of a judge, or by an apparently ministerial officer outside the court. It is also doubtful whether such a measure would be constitutional in view of the prohibition of the constitution contained in article 6, section 20, which provides that no judicial officer should receive to his own use any fees or perquisites of office, and section 10, which provides that the justices of the Supreme Court shall not hold any other office or public trust. Apart from constitutional questions, there seems to be no such elaborate scheme of jury getting as is provided in this bill. There have been very few times when circumstances have arisen which would necessitate any such measure as is not contemplated.

We believed thoroughly that in some instances the rights of the accused are not fully protected by reason of the notoriety which the newspapers gave to the matter, but this bill seems superfluous and unwise in its provisions.

Accordingly a movement was started by the association in 1892, and a bill was prepared by one of its committees providing for a thorough and uniform examination of all applicants throughout the State. Under the Colonial government of the Province It met with unexpected opposition in 1892 and 1893, of New York the political power of the people was but in 1894, after a most energetic struggle on the extremely limited. The king appointed the gov- part of the association, it was passed by a not altoernor, the governor appointed the legislative coun-gether willing Legislature, and the desired object cil, and from a small class of its citizens an assem- accomplished. This association is entitled to bly was chosen. The king, the legislative council the credit of placing all applicants on the same and the assembly constituted the legislature, but footing and protecting all litigants from incompeno bill could become a law without the approval of tent lawyers.