graph of the syllabus, which has been made by the "Co-ops" in their "Reporters," has not been, in my judgment, entirely successful, though this plan is better than no attempt at all. But I am very emphatic in saying that in this point the reporting of the Wests is better done than that of the "Co-ops," though in other respects the "Co-ops" surpass the Wests.
Another great aid to the searcher is what we may call cut-in side notes, such as those which are given in the reports of the Supreme Court of Iowa and in some of the recent reports of the Supreme Court of Missouri. These are very great aids to the searcher, and inform him where the discussion of the particular point in the syllabus which he has under investigation commences in the opinion. The advantage of this means of saving labor can scarcely be over-estimated. The Iowa reporter who invented it deserves the thanks of the profession. It ought to be adopted by every reporter, and in those States in which the subject of reporting is regulated by law, the law ought to require the reporter to adopt this simple and inexpensive means of saving labor. It is to be regretted that this feature of reporting has lately been abandoned in Missouri.
Another great aid to the rapid examination and quick citation of law reports, which nearly every reporter omits, is the practice of placing in the caption of each page the number and volume of the report, abbreviated as it should be cited. Thus, I hold in my hands Vol. 106 of the reports of the Supreme Court of Indiana. In turning over this volume to cite it, one who is working through a number of volumes has to turn to the back of it to see what volume it is. In a few years, if it remains in a well-used library, it will be an old and weather-worn book. The lettering on the back will very likely be effaced, as is the case with many volumes in the St. Louis Law Library. The searcher, then, in order to cite the book must fumble till he finds the titlepage. When he gets to it he will indeed find the letters "Vol. 106," but in nine out of ten volumes of law reports he will find the number of the titlepage given in those abominable Roman numerals, which are as difficult to gather up and understand quickly, compared with Arabic numerals, as Latin words are difficult to understand quickly when compared with our own short Saxon words. At the top of the left-hand page of this volume, instead of the legend "Supreme Court of Indiana, May Term, 1886,"—a lettering which is of almost no value,—the caption words should be: "106 Ind. 564," or whatever the page happens to be, exactly as it ought to be cited in a brief. The searcher should be able to find out how to cite the book from a reference to the top of the page. What is here said of law reports applies also to text-books, to digests, and to every law book which, by any possibility, may be cited as authority. The omission of this simple aid to the searcher is unpardonably stupid. I know of but two sets of reports which contain this heading at the top of the page,—the Missouri Appeal Reports, and the West Publishing Company's "Reporters," though there may possibly be others.
Another abominable practice in reporters is to string out at the head of each case the names of all the parties, sometimes a dozen in number, on each side. Where this is done, the searcher who is examining cases for the purpose of making a brief, or writing a magazine article, a book, or a judicial opinion, must stop and pick out the surname of the first plaintiff and the surname of the first defendant, in order to get the two leading names by which the case is properly cited. This outrageous practice was kept up, by the old reporters of the Supreme Court of the United States, down to the end of the term of Howard. It was finally abandoned by Wallace, who adopted in its stead a practice of short designations; such as, "Smith v. Railroad Co." or "Smith v. Bank." Mr. Wallace probably carried abbreviation in this respect too far. The style of a case, when given in a volume of reports, should embrace, with-
