There is a steady and rapid increase of crime in this country which should command more attention from the public authorities than is generally given it. The columns of the daily newspapers bear testimony to the fact that criminality in every form is broadcast, and that in every city of the country the burglar and highwayman find abundant opportunities, while murders have become more numerous than ever before in our history. The last authoritative criminal statistics showed a large increase in every phase of crime, but particularly so in acts of the most heinous character. The record of murders in this country for the six years from 1884 to 1889, inclusive, gives a total of nearly fifteen thousand, last year exceeding by several hundred either of the preceding years in the number of lives taken by violence. It is interesting to note that but few more than ten per cent. of the murderers were legally executed, the larger number of them who paid the penalty of their crime, having met retributive justice at the hands of lynchers. By way of showing the difference in results of dealing with murderers by "due process of law" and by the system of Judge Lynch, it is stated that of the nearly fifteen thousand persons charged with murder last year only five hundred and fifty-eight were legally executed and nine hundred and seventy-five were lynched.

There has long been complaint, and it would seem from the facts very justly so, of the slow and uncertain course of justice in this country as in large part accounting for the increase of crime. When it is shown that in a period of six years murder was legally punished in only one case out of about twenty-seven, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is some radical fault in our legal system. Whether it be in the delays of courts, the method of constituting juries, or in a popular hostility to capital punishment, it is extremely difficult to determine, but it is quite likely that all these have their influence. It is maintained by experienced jurists that the law's delay is very potent in encouraging crime, since under most circumstances the criminal is the gainer by such delay, especially in other than capital crimes, while even as to these it not unfrequently happens that public sympathy is worked upon in behalf of an accused person when a long period intervenes between arrest and trial. Almost everybody knows of a case where maudlin sentiment has been worked up in a community in behalf of a prisoner that has resulted in defeating justice. There has been a great deal of criticism, also, of the system of constituting juries in

criminal cases, which is in most of the States practically the same now that it was when the system was first instituted. With regard to popular sentiment respecting capital punishment, the claim that there is a growing antipathy to the death penalty, which has recently been freely urged in New York by the advocates of a repeal of the law providing for capital punishment, we believe to be illfounded. The argument derived from the fact that there are so few legal executions seems plausible, but it is by no means convincing that the general popular judgment is unfavorable to capital punishment.

But it is a condition, and a very serious one, that confronts us, and in looking for a practical way to meet it, not much help will be derived from discussing theories. When regard for human life appears to be everywhere growing less and the record shows the murderous impulse to be steadily advancing, it is necessary to determine what sure and summary remedy society can apply to such a state of affairs. The only rational recourse must be to a prompt and effective execution of the laws. This duty devolves upon the courts, which while regarding to the utmost all that is implied in "due process of law," should refuse to countenance or tolerate any of those devices or expedients by which justice is delayed and criminals are enabled to unduly profit.-Omaha Bee.

FARMERS should know enough about law to keep out of it, or if they should become involved in it, to act understandingly and rationally, under the circumstances in which they find themselves placed. Few farmers ever read the Constitution, and, as a rule, they know no more about the laws of their respective States than they do of biology, and but little of the laws of their country. To be sure, the laws are changed so much it is rather discouraging for the farmer, but he ought to know enough about them to put up a partition fence so there would arise no trouble between him and his neighbor. Farmers would do well to heed Paul's words to the Corinthians: "I speak to your shame. Is it not so that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? but brother goeth to law with brother."

The principles of what is called common law conform to sound reason and common sense, but statute law is often arbitrary in its provisions. Every intelligent farmer should become acquainted with the laws of his State, and if he is not intelligent he should seek to become so. So far as they have bearing on his immediate interests or duties, to instruct him in the means of performing his duty to his

friends and neighbors, by giving his advice and assistance in cases that unavoidably arise in all communities, he should be conversant with the laws. Those which have relation to the poor, the roads, the county rates and levies, the respective rights of master and servant, etc., and estrays, should be familiar to and well understood by every landholder in the Commonwealth.

Those that have relation to the duties of executor, administrator, guardian, and trustee, are of vast importance, and there are few persons of property or respectability who are not called upon at some period in their lives to act in one or another of those capacities; it is, therefore, of much consequence that some general knowledge, at least, of the laws on these subjects should be possessed by farmers. There will always be points of difficulty and intricacy arising where legal counsel is indispensable, but a knowledge of the general duties which is so easily acquired should be more generally possessed than it is at present.

Every farmer should be the proprietor of a digested copy of the laws of the State, which would educate him and enable him to extend his usefulness, and be of incalculable advantage to his children, who, as they grew to maturity, would gradually acquire a knowledge of the laws by which they are to be governed, when they are out of the government of parental law, without severe study or loss of time from other occupations. And if farmers had more knowledge of the laws on subjects of general interest, pettifogging lawyers would soon become scarce in the community; their support would be gone and they would be obliged to seek some more honest calling for a subsistence which would be a blessing to those on whom they prey and would tend to promote peace and harmony, where now disputes arise on small provocation. If farmers understood a little of law and a little of hygiene, quacks and pettifogers would disappear; and crowding what is called "the learned professions would cease. This is an evil of great magnitude which has robbed agriculture of many promising subjects, without adding anything to the reputation of the bar or gaining ambitious youth any repute in medical ranks.

A large proportion of the suits at law which crowd the courts of justice arise from unbridled passions, by which reason becomes unseated until the person is fairly embarked in a legal contest, and then pride comes in to persuade that to retreat is to be conquered ; another most fertile source of litigation is ignorance, which costs much time and money and vexation before it is rubbed off. George Elliot furnishes an illustration of these statements in her Mill on the

Floss, when Mr. Tulliver, of Dorlcote Mill, who regards "law as a a sort of cock fight, in which it was the business of injured honesty to get a game bird with the best pluck and strongest spurs," and who rebelled against the infringement on his legitimate share of water power. He went to law with Mr. Pivoart and his "dykes and erigation," and lost his mill, his farm, and his life through his ignorance and obstinacy.-Philadelphia Telegraph.

COPYRIGHT is a holy fad with righteous Britishers, and it is well for Americans to read this from the Publisher's Weekly :

Now and again cases are made public which give the impression that our English brethren are rather careless in their methods of doing business. Within three weeks the John W. Lovell Company have been called upon to defend themselves and to make explanation of matters that were not of their doing. First, Mr. Hatton accused them of publishing one of his stories as "authorized," when he had not even been asked for authority, and indulged in some very strong language. And all this because his publishers failed to notify him that such an arrangement had been made.

Next, Harper & Bros. discovered that the Lovell Company had published a novel by Justin McCarthy and Mrs. Campbell Praed as an authorized edition, which had been published by the Harpers a year ago under another title. In answer to their statement to this effect the Lovells reply that they purchased the American rights from the agent of the London publishers, being assured that the book had never been issued in this country. They also state that they had nothing to do with the change of title, the running head through the entire book which they had from England being the one used in their issue. The English publisher had evidently forgotten that he had already sold the right to another house.

Still another case has come to our notice, which, however, has not yet been made public. An American house which has had the agency for over a quarter of a century for an English religious magazine learned to their amazement, from one of their subscribers, that another American firm is advertising that it is now the agent of the magazine in question and that it will hereafter supply it at fifty cents a year less than it has been published for heretofore. This, be it understood, in the middle of the subscription year, and after the first house has obtained subscriptions at the higher rate. This transaction is the meanest of which we have yet heard. Our English friends are ever ready to hurl into our teeth" pirate," "Yankee trick," and other like encomiuns.

PUT THEM ON in Open Court.-Justice Holt was in a critical frame of mind recently when the case of R. H. Hill against Revan Sugarman came up for trial. Sugarman is a tailor near Eleventh street and Broadway, and some time ago Hill had him make a pair of trousers for him. When the garment was completed, however, Hill claimed it was not a fit, though he took it away with him and brought his suit for damages. Hill was eloquent in crying the tailor's incompetency in his work.

Why, your Honor," he said to the court, "the pants were so tight for me I could not wear them; I just wish you could see them on me and I know you would give me a judgment immediately." "Have you them here?" asked the Judge. "Yes sir, here they are in this bundle," answered Hill, producing a bundle.

"Let me see them," said the court, reaching over. Hill handed the Judge the bundle and his Honor unrolled it, exposing a very gaudy pair of spring pantaloons. The court caught hold of each leg and held them up and surveyed them critically. Finally he threw them back to Hill, saying: "Put them on."

"What?" said Hill, “right now-put them on in court?" "That is what I ordered," answered the court.

Hill's eyes stuck out and he looked as though his ears had deceived him, but after looking at the trousers thoughtfully for a moment he commenced to doff his nether garments. The loungers in the court room were immensely amused by this time and fairly arose in their seats with expectancy. When Hill finally got his trousers off and stepped out in front of the court a howl of delight went up. Hill looked confused for a moment, but commenced putting on the new garment, when the court told him to hurry up. Finally the trousers were on and securely buttoned up.

Now," said the court, "stoop over and let me see where they don't fit."

Hill stooped and then paraded up and down before the bench at the court's order.

"You see, Judge," said Sugarman, "when he ordered that garment he did not bring enough goods and I had to do the best I could. If he wanted a divided skirt he ought to have brought more cloth."

"Those pants are all right," said the court, "and I find for the defense. Mr. Hill, you keep them on and pay the costs of the suit."-Kansas City Times.

WHOSO is in the law, acteth according to the law; whoso is under the law, is acted upon according to the law. Augustine, Ps. I.