as well as ex contractu? He has to do it now in equity cases, and equity suits frequently arise ex delicto.

Every affidavit of defense is a special plea. It contains the substantial matter of a special plea, which is not and never will be abolished. The technicalities, that is, the commencements and conclusions of special pleading have been abolished. Hereafter Mr. Freeze will not be cast because he "offers to verify" his defense when he ought to "offer to prove it by the record." Let him read Murphy v. Richards, 5 W. & S. 279, for an awful example in this respect. He will now say that he " expects to be able to prove" his allegations of defence.

The author of the Act of 1887 is one of the most able judges, as well as a member of the highest court in this State. Every line of that Act, like the Statute of Frauds, deserves a subsidy, because it is the beginning of the reform, which must and will go on to completion. Does Mr. Freeze know that England has adopted our Pennsylvania statement and defense law, and has greatly improved on it, and that there are no narrs, pleas, replications, non-assumpsits, nonculs, absque hocs or de injurias there-nothing but a concise statement, a defense or counter-claim, (we call it set-off) and reply, and that if a pleader uses the common counts" or Chitty's Forms, they will be struck out and the costs put on him. Does he know that there are no demurrers in England—and that a party must wage his law as well as his facts in his defense or reply? Does he know there are no bills in equity, or assumpsits, trespasses, or the like there, but only one "action" for all claims at law or in equity? Does he know that there are no writs of error, or certiorari there, but only an appeal, of which notice is given to the other side, just as Mr. Freeze gives notice (or ought to) when he appeals from a justice of the peace?

Finally, let Mr. Freeze be encouraged to keep on writing. If he does he will be converted. The subject is so fascinating that it will turn Mr. Freeze over to the right side in time. But he must read as well as write. He should read Odgers on Libel and Slander -the forms-also Wilson's English Judicature Acts and Forms, also Jacob's Fisher's Digest-Title Practice-for Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council. Also Chief Justice Gibson's saying in Burk v. Huber, 2 Watts 311, that "an adherence to the narrow notions of antiquity, would be not only inconsistent with the spirit of modern practice, but peculiarly productive of injustice here." That was in the year 1834, and concerned amendments which were resisted as an innovation on the common law. Also

Chief Justice Black's words in Wilson v. Hayes, 18 Pa. 357, that it is useless to complain of being compelled to abandon a defense "so unfounded that it cannot be sworn to;" and Chief Justice Gibson's other potent phrase in Loan Co. v. Elliott's Exr's. 15 Pa. 227, "We have not yet gone so far as to disregard the form of the writ, count or judgment, but why should we not do so when justice cries out for it, and there is no other way to appease her clamor? or why should we choose to give relief in handcuffs? From the moment the Court departed in the least from technical form, there could be no stopping place short of perfect and entire justice." And also Chief Justice Paxson's trite words in the Benjinger Township Road Case, 26 weekly notes 196-" Courts pay less regard to mere technicalities now than formerly."

But let us earnestly hope that Mr. Freeze will not favor a repeal of any of the new procedure. Florida is the only State that ever repealed a new procedure for the old, and surely Mr. Freeze would not make Florida his ideal of a progressive State.

Philadelphia, June, 1890.

M. ARNOLD.

STAGNANT WATER has caused a suit in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., which is said to be without precedent there. Little Alexander Orawitz, like all the rising generation, went to play in the street and espied a slimy pool of stagnant water in the street. Being of the tender age of four, his feet were not yet under certain control of the compacted muscles of a hardy youth, and by mischance he fell in; with the proper instinct of a human being possessed of lungs and relying upon the duty of the town authorities to keep noxious things out of the highway, Alexander opened his mouth. Beyond the fact that his mouth was open when in contact with the aforesaid slimy water, the proof is unnecessary, for the result of the aforesaid opening was a damage, to wit, the death of the aforesaid Alexander by blood poisoning; wherefore the said Alexander's parents were damaged and brought their suit. The peculiar thing, in an economic sense, is, that the borough has not been sued before for such an event. In the absence of a plea by the defendant, of the habit of boys in that town, to avoid such puddles, it would seem that either there must be no such puddles as a rule, or else there has as yet been no case of blood poisoning to warn the authorities.

LAW tells a man that it is best to keep as quiet as possible in misfortunes, and check all feelings of discontent. Repub. Plato, X, 604.

ELECTORAL REFORM IN NEW YORK STATE.-The long contest over the details of a ballot reform bill in New York State has been at length brought to an end by the passage of a compromise measure, which has become law through the approval of the governor. This contest has now been going on for three years. The first ballot reform bill, introduced three years ago, aimed to establish substantially the Australian system of voting. It provided an exclusively official ballot, containing the names of nominees of all parties, and did not authorize voting for any candidate not nominated on the official ballot. It also required the ballot clerks to mark their initials on the back of each ballot, and it required each voter to indicate his choice of a candidate by marking a cross opposite his name on the ballot. These and other features of the measure were objectionable to the governor, who held them unconstitutional, and vetoed the bill for the reasons, among others, that it would do away with the freedom and secrecy of the ballot, and would disfranchise illiterate voters.

A second bill, passed last year, retained the main features of the first-mentioned measure, but contained some amendments intended to obviate objections made to the law. This bill was also vetoed by the governor, who held that, in spite of the modifications, the bill remained an unconstitutional measure. A third bill was passed

some time ago. This bill contained some further amendments upon the original measure. It retained the so-called "blanket ballot," on which the names of all candidates for a particular class of officers (such as state or municipal) were printed in parallel columns under titles designating the political parties represented by them, but allowed voters to paste on the exclusively official ballot the names of one or more candidates, though requiring them to erase from the ballot the names of all parties for whom they do not wish their votes to be counted. The bill also permitted the use of unofficial ballots where a candidate died before election day. The governor, on receiving this bill, sent a message to the legislature proposing that the question of the constitutionality of the provisions objected to by him be referred to the State court of last resort, but the legislature declined to entertain the proposition, and the governor vetoed this bill as he did the preceding ones on substantially the same grounds.

By this time it was seen that the matter of ballot reform had got into a condition of deadlock, and that if any measure at all were to be passed a compromise must be effected. Such a compromise was reached in the measure approved by the governor on the 2d instant. This measure contained important amendments intended to obviate

the governor's constitutional objections. The exclusively official ballot is retained, but voters are allowed under the new law to take into the voting booths printed ballots of their own selection, containing the names of all the offices to be filled and of all the candidates for whom they desire to vote, to paste the same on any of the official ballots below the stub, and the names written or printed. on the "paster" ballot are to be deemed the choice of the voter, notwithstanding the names of other candidates for the same offices may be upon the original ballots without being erased, covered or concealed by the writing or paster. The blanket ballot is discarded, and there are to be separate ballots for the tickets of each party instead of the separate columns which were to have been put on the "blanket ballot." The provision allowing for the pasting of a complete ballot on the official ballot does away also with the objection to the previous bills that they would disfranchise the illiterate voter. The governor insisted in his message to the legislature that provision should be made in a ballot reform bill for a general system of registration of electors. Such a feature forms no part of the ballot reform bill which has just been approved, but the governor yielded his views on the assurance that such a measure would be passed by the legislature.

These measures do not exhaust the sum of the actual and probable legislation touching the question of electoral reform in the leading State of the Union. In his last annual message the governor suggested that the legislature consider the advisability of adopting the main features of the Corrupt Practices Act of Great Britain. The legislature subsequently passed an Act requiring the filing of itemized statements of expenditures by candidates. In a recent measure, however, the governor takes the ground that while the existing Act is good as far as it goes, it does not go far enough, and he suggests that its provisions be extended so as to include political agents and committees among those required to file statements of expenditures. Without such an extension, he suggests the practical benefit desired by the passage of the Act in discouraging large contributions by candidates will be only partially secured. As a general thing the statements furnished under the law merely show that the candidates have paid over certain sums to committeemen or other political agents, but do not show what the money was expended for. The governor has submitted to the legislature a draft of an Act requiring that every chairman, treasurer, or other officer, or member of a state, county, town, ward, district, or other political organization, and every other person who shall receive from any candidate for

office voted for at any public election held within the State any money or other valuable thing paid or contributed by any such candidate, or by any other person for him, to be used in aid of the election of such candidate, or of candidates upon the same ticket with the candidate, or to defray the expenses of such election or any expense of the canvass of such candidate, or of the ticket upon which he may be, either before or after such election shall have taken place, shall within ten days after such election, or within ten days after receiving such money or other valuable thing, in case it is not received within ten days after the election, file an itemized statement which shall give the names of the various persons to whom such money or other valuable thing was paid or delivered, the the amount paid to each, the specific nature of each item, and the purpose for which it was expended or paid out, which statement shall be signed by the person making it and verified by his affidavit. Such an Act as this faithfully enforced would do away with much electioneering corruption that now passes unchallenged, and would before long furnish material upon which to base a restriction of the amount of money to be contributed and spent for electioneering purposes. The working of the new legislation in New York State will be watched with great interest, for the reason that the most searching test of the new legislation on the most extensive scale will be furnished there.—Bradstreet's.

CORNELL LAW SCHOOL claims to possess superior advantages for those students who intend pursuing some special branch of the law; for the ordinary student, the first portion of the course is taken up by daily lectures and examinations and by oral text-book exposition and recitations; for those more advanced, the study of leading cases is made a special feature.

YALE LAW SCHOOL claims to have the only four years course in either America or England, two years of which are devoted to the practical side of the profession, followed by another year of similar instruction on an extended scale, and then the fourth year is devoted to the philosophy of the science.

HARVARD LAW SCHOOL has appointed a Mr. Brewster as a special instructor in the local law of the State, in a third year course; this is done in the hope of such popularity as to warrant the addition of similar local courses for other States.