ality, in obtaining opinions as to the opera tion of foreign law, and, in short, in all cases involving private international law . . . It is estimated that there are now some 1500 men-of-the-law of various descriptions and grades who have a knowledge of Esperanto. If only the rest of the lawyers would spend a little of their leisure time in learning Esperanto—an agreeable pastime, requiring no serious study-—they would acquire a keylanguage which would enable them to com municate, as occasion offered, with their foreign lawyer direct, saving themselves and their clients much unneccessary trouble and annoyance, and obtaining at the same time a more intelligent grasp of the matter in hand.
IN the Virginia Law Register for August, "Christian Science and the Law" is discussed by Irving E. Campbell, of the Richmond, Virginia, Bar, who says in closing: We know that the State must be guided in these matters, as in all others, by reason and experience, and where by such criteria a practice is found to be positively harmful, it should be prohibited. But since reason and experience have so often proved false stand ards in matters of medical practice, and theo ries long recognized have been abandoned by the profession, we should be very lenient toward any new development which contains anything of good, and the harmfulness of which is at most but negative. The spirit of our institutions fosters the utmost freedom of thought and action, so long as the free dom and welfare of others is not affected and no positive harm is done. We conclude, therefore, that the Christian Scientists should be allowed to practice their system, but under reasonable and proper regulations. To insure proficiency in their own system and ability to recognize the classes of cases which they do not treat, except that in cases of children and others without volition, the State should require
treatment more fully justified by its criterion of reason and experience. THE Indian witness is defended by The Calcutta Weekly Notes, which says: It is a fashion in our law courts to talk of the unreliability of Indian witnesses. Interested lawyers are known to condemn native testimony before judges, who know little of this country and its people, and thelatter sometimes run away with the idea that, perhaps, there is more lying in this country than there is in the English Law Courts. But we all know that respectable people in this country are most averse to depose in Court from a fear of telling an untruth, even by a lapse of memory. They regard it a dire calamity to be called as a witness, and are known to beg and pray of the parties and their friends to be spared irom passing through this ordeal. Old class of people are known to bathe in the Ganges or do other penance for having deposed in Court. Formerly the sun and the moon used to be cited as witness in deeds and con veyances, and a number of them is still to be found in the possession of old families, which have never been challenged or gain said. The modern law courts and their procedure have, however, to a great extent changed the private ways of the people. The prejudice against giving evidence on oath amongst respectable classes is still very strong, and as a result, a class of people have grown up, who are available for de posing in Court for a consideration. But judges can or ought to soon make out a witness of this type. There may be also interested witnesses of a better type in this country, as there is in any other, who may bear false testimony with a purpose. But from that to condemn Indian testimony as unworthy of credit is a gross calumny. . . As a matter of fact, perjury in our Law Courts is much less pronounced than it is in the English Law Courts.
