The Negro's Rights. — There has been recent occasion to find a little fault in these columns with Noah Brooks for some utterances against Charles Sumner; and now comes Mr. E. H. Bristow, defend ing Chief Justice Taney against the charge attributed by Mr. Brooks, that he decided that " the negro has no rights which the white man is bound to respect." It is familiar history to lawyers that the Chief-Justice did not make that statement as an expression of his own opinion, but as the result of a historical review of the opinions of a former time; and as such it was eminently correct. We hardly think that Mr. Brooks isopen to the charge of mis-statement or miscon struction in this instance. What he said was that the Chief-Justice made "his decision to the effect that the negro has no rights that a white man is bound to respect.'1 The decision was to that effect, and the North so construed it, for it decided that under the laws of Missouri the negro was not a citi zen and could not wage his suit in court. This is probably all that Mr. Brooks intended to convey. Taney, it is said, did not approve of slavery; he emancipated his own slaves. There is no expression in his famous opinion indicating his approval of the system. He merely states the facts and the legal deductions which seemed inevitable to him. Un doubtedly he sincerely thought that a decision the other way would precipitate disunion and war. But such a decision could not have had that effect more distinctly than the one made. It is not on the face of the opinion that one finds anything dishonorable or immoral, but in the secret history of it, as exposed by Mr. Justice Curtis and recorded by his biogra pher, Mr. Ticknor, there is shown an evident want of candor and fair dealing on the part of the ChiefJustice, which was resorted to in order to lug in the question of citizenship. But after all, there was no more log-rolling than in the Dartmouth College case, and the affair has turned out as God meant it should. It is clue to the Chief Justice to point out that he did not use the expression in question as his own view, and to Mr. Brooks that the latter did not allege that the Chief-Justice did.
Libel by Monument. — Is there such a thing? Our friend Appleton Morgan thinks so, for he sends us, with a suggestion to that effect, a copy of an in scription from a stone in the old burying-ground at Brimfield, Mass., which runs as follows: " Mr. Ezra Wood died 6 November 1812, aged 20. His death was occasioned by a blow of a stone on the head from the hand of Hiram Stebbins, maliciously thrown at him."' Then comes a stanza, alleging that " His Saiour called him home," — as he did Stephen, it appears. No doubt this was a libel, unless it could
be justified. It is a wonder that the allegation was not of a " rock," for stones were commonly called "rocks" in old New England, and generally they were " heaved," a la the Trojan heroes. But no fault should be found with this monument, — it is only giving stone for stone. Lord Justice Bowen. — The London " Law Jour nal " gives a copy of the Latin inscription on a marble tablet placed by the Benchers in the vestibule of the chapel of Lincoln's Inn. It seems rather late in the day to put epitaphs in Latin (especially when it must necessarily be somewhat hoggish) instead of English, which will probably outlive Latin; and it seems es pecially inappropriate to do so in the case of one whose chief, if not his only fame, will rest on his translation of the first six /Eneids into English verse! At least the Benchers might well have made some allusion to this elegant performance in the Latin epi taph. But perhaps they thought the translation sac rilegious. A New Legal Relationship. — " Law-Book News'1 speaks of Mr. Charles F. Beach, Jr., as "author, or at least god-father, of many legal treat ises." This is not strictly accurate. He is their father-in-law. The slur on Mr. Beach is undeserved. His books are good, whether he did all the work him self or not. Raphael did not always paint the whole of a picture; but he designed it, and he and his pu pils executed it. "Current Events of Interest to Lawyers and Law-Students." — Under this head, the very comely and readable "The Law-Students1 Helper," of Detroit, announces that "July 7th — A daughter is born to the President and Mrs. Cleveland."
NOTES OF CASES. The Husband — Seducer. — In Kroessin v. Keller, 27 L. K. A. 685, the Minnesota Supreme Court hold that a married woman cannot maintain an action of crim. con. against another woman, in the absence of proof that the husband was enticed away, or induced to abandon or desert his wife. The Court distinguish the class of cases, of which Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621; 32 Am. Rep. 397, is the pioneer, and which has been so generally followed, on the ground that it was a case of desertion induced by the defendant. The Court admit that the New Hampshire and Indiana cases warrant the plaintiff's contention. The decision in the principal case is based on the notion that " such actions would seem to be better calculated to inflict pain upon the inno
