By Irving Browne.
CURRENT TOPICS. Ra1lroad Mortal1ty. — In the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission for 1897 is a very surprising statement as to the number of railway em ployes killed and wounded in the course of their employment in the year ending June 30, 1896. The number was 1861 killed and 29,969 wounded, or more than in many a great battle. Of these, 229 were killed and 8.457 were wounded in coupling or uncoupling cars. These statistics are used in a recent North Carolina case to justify the decision that failure to equip freight cars with self-couplers is negligence in itself, and that a brakeman's knowledge of the lack and the danger does not constitute contributory neg ligence. Two judges dissented, one of them ob serving, "This was written as the opinion of the court, but since it was written the court has changed its opinion, and I file it as my dissenting opinion." (Greenlee v. So. Ry. Co.. 41 L. R. A., 399.) The dissenting opinion contains the following significant warning: " But it seems to us that as a matter of economy, to say nothing of the sufFering and loss of human life, railroads would be induced to get and use the more modern and safer appliances. They will have to do this soon, or answer for damages caused by the lack of them." St1ll " Swell1n'." — The American Annual Di gest for 1898 contains 3563 pages, which we believe breaks the record. It is an error of judgment to put this enormous mass in one volume. It is impossible to handle the book conveniently or comfortably, and in a little while it will become necessary to bind it over to keep the pieces. There is plenty of it for two volumes. The General Digest published by the Lawyers' Co-operative Publishing Company bound its annual for 1897 in two volumes, and it made books quite bulky enough for lawyers who are not profes sional athletes, or in training for lifting heavy weights. Really this enormous annual for 1898 is a species of cruelty to animals. Our criticism is confined to its bulk. In all other points it is a highly creditable piece of work, and represents an appalling amount of literary labor. The West Publishing Company's "Century Digest," which is coming out with com mendable regularity, is discreetly limited to volumes
of some 2500 pages. We suppose it will be com pleted sometime, perhaps in the first decade of the next century. Meantime the mass of judge-made law will keep on growing. Oh, what a pitiable bookburdened profession we are, to be sure! Jud1c1al Robes. — The recent donning of robes by the judges of the first department of the New York Supreme Court has revived the outcry on the part of certain ultra-democrats that was raised when the judges of the Court of Appeals decided to adopt them some years ago. The New York " Tribune " has re cently published a very sensible editorial in favor of this distinctive judicial costume. There are some solid arguments in favor of the wearing of the robes, and hardly anything but the mouthings of political demagogues against it. If military and naval officers wear uniforms when on formal duty, why should not judges? There is comparatively little objection made to the priest's robe, and none at all to the academic or collegiate gown. When the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and the judges of the New York Court of Appeals enter the court room in their robes of office, and the crier makes proclamation of the opening of court, the bar and spectators mean while standing until the magistrates take their seats, it is a conventional but not an unmeaning or undemo cratic form, imposed by the bar to indicate their rev erence for justice, and not any abasement to the judges. Everybody would be shocked to see a judge sitting on the bench in his shirt-sleeves, or even a lawyer trying a cause in that free-and-easy dress, but it is difficult to appreciate the distinction between a black frock-coat, which nobody objects to, and a black robe. A judge is not any better than any other man simply by reason of his official position, and a robe does not make him any better, either positively or comparatively, but it may be an influential form to remind the spectator of the solemn presence into which he has come. No lawyer objects to address ing a judge on the bench as " Your honor," which is the merest form. Although the form does not pre vail in this country, there could be no good reason why our judges should not wear the black cap in pro nouncing sentence of death. The sheriff's staff or the constable's pole is not denounced, although it is 89
