but he believed those feelings would disappear as soon as the law came into operation. The possible mischief would, in his judgment, be infinitesimal." The ancient tenderness of the law that denied to persons accused of murder the privilege of testifying on their own behalf, lest they should add perjury to murder, was rather laughable.
Codes. — Sir Henry Maine, in "Early Law and Custom," alludes to the Hindu tradition that when Manu gave to Narada his account of the creation and geography of the world, "it contained one hundred thousand slokas, legal text or verses," and that the donee observed, " This book cannot easily be studied by human beings on account of its length." He ac cordingly abridged it to twelve thousand verses, and his disciple, Sumati, further abridged it to four thousand. It is only the gods, says the introduc tion, who read the original Code. Men read the second abridgment, since human capacity has been brought to this through the lessening of life." This has been suggested by the information that Mr. J . New ton Fiero of Albany, late president of the New York State Bar Association, has been making an attempt to procure a revision of the Code of Civil Procedure of that State.' That famous institution, made by David Dudley Field, and modified by the experience of thirty years, stood almost perfect, in 1880, in about three hundred sections. About that time, Mr. Throop got himself appointed chairman of a com mission to revise the statutes. They were expressly enjoined not to meddle with those parts of the law wh1ch had been already codified, but Mr. Throop fancied himself a jurist and yearned to get his name on the title-page of that law epoch-making code, and so he wrote it all over, and expanded and bloated it with matters that are no proper part of a Code, but belong solely to rules laid down by the judges; and this monstrous legal dropsy, of three thousand four hundred sections, he persuaded the Legislature to adopt, through the same influence which prevailed on the judge in Scripture in favor of the much speaking woman, and ever since, with some supplementary special inflation, it has stood a reproach to the cause of Codification, and the ridicule of the Old Men of the Sea in States that do not like Codes. Bliss's edition of this Code is in three volumes of nearly three thousand nine hundred pages in fine type! Mr. Fiero's proposal is excellent and deserves the encouragement of every lawyer who has any desire for the improvement of the laws and the benefit of the profession. The only thing in the way is the natural indisposition of lawyers to change rules with which they have become very familiar. We would not rail too hardly at that, for we recollect the con
tented spirit with which we went out of the practice of the law, just as Throop's code came in. We had grown up under Field's code, and we had no mind to surrender it for a bigger one, and to relearn our practice. But this revision must inevitably be made some time, and the sooner the better, and we know of no more laudable matter on which reform should operate than this, under the lead and supervision of Mr. Fiero.
Hats Aga1n. — This time it is women's hats on which we would discourse. The masculine fraction of the community has been temporarily cheered by the intelligence that bills have been introduced in three State legislatures for the suppression of women's high hats in theatres. Men have hitherto borne with this crowning abuse very tamely, but it has grown to such dimensions of late that we suspect the women themselves are rebelling and demanding that hats shall be lowered or doffed. Men will not submit to an inconvenient fashion or custom for a great length of time. They do not insist on wearing their high hats so as to cheat others of their money's worth. But women are never content unless there is some unnatural and grotesque excrescence in their apparel. If it is not a bustle, it is crinoline, or huge inflated sleeves, or high heels, or a hat eighteen inches high. It must be conceded, however, that when our dear tyrants do consent to a modification, they generally signalize it by going to the opposite extreme, and so in contrast with the high hat, our eves have been rejoiced of late by many sweet little con fections of a mere bit of lace with a bow of ribbon or velvet, which does not interfere with one's view of the stage in the least. But these are the exception, and the tall hat with its hearse-plumes, nodding to right and left, is still largely in the majority, and causes the masculine attendant to wish that he were not a church member, so that he might ejaculate " a big, big D." So when we heard of the introduction of this bill, under a very carefully guarded phraseology, in the New York legislature, we were much elated, and hoped that the high hat was about to be relegated to its proper place at church or funerals. But alas! it turns out that the New York bill was never seriously intended. It was but a cruel and unfeeling joke designed merely to satirize the women. It has met its fate in the assembly. Although fifty-six men voted for it, to fifty-three against it, there was not a constitutional majority. It was simply a scene of horse-play. All very fine, gentlemen! You may jest about tariff or income tax or national currency, but not on the high hat. We can tell you that you will have to account with your enraged con stituents when you come home, and that even if
