But this rather belongs to the treatise of originall writs, and therefore much herein shall suffice.

And it is to be observed, that every word of Littleton is worthy of observation. First (Heires) in the plurall number; for if a man give land to a man and to his heire in the singular number, he hath but an estate for life, for his heire cannot take a fee simple by descent, because he is but one, and therefore in that case his heire shall take nothing. Also observable is this conjunctive (et). For if a man give lands to one, To have and to hold to him or his heires, he hath but an estate for life, for the uncertaintie. (His, suis) If a man give land unto two, To have and to hold to them two et haeredibus, omitting suis, they have but an estate for life, for the uncertanty; whereof more hereafter in this Section. But is said, if land be given to one man et haeredibus, omitting suis, that notwithstanding a fee simple passeth; but it is safe to follow Littleton.

"And his assignes." Assignee cometh of the verb assigno. And note there be assignes in deed and assignes in law: whereof see more in the Chapter of Warrantie, Sect. 733.

"These words (his heires) which words onely make an estate of inheritance in all feoffments and grants." Si autem facta esset donatio, ut si dicam, do tibi talem terram, ista donatio non extendit ad haeredes sed ad vitam donatoria, &c. Here Littleton treateth of purchases by naturall persons, and not of bodies politique or corporate; for if lands be given to a sole body politique or corporate, (as to a bishop, parson, vicar, master of an hospital, &c.,) there to give him an estate of inheritance in his politique or corporate capacite, he must have these words, to have and to hold to him and his successors; for without these words his successors, in those cases there passeth no inheritance; for as the heire doth inherit to the ancestor, so the successor doth succeed to the predecessor, and the executor to the testator. But it appeareth here by Littleton, that if a man at this day give lands to I. S. and his successors, this createth no fee simple in him; for Littleton, speaking of naturall persons, saith that these words (his heires) make an estate of inheritance in all feoffments and grants, whereby he excludeth these words (his successors). And yet if it be an ancient grant, it must be expounded as the law was taken at the time of the grant.

9. a.] If the king by his letters patent giveth lands decano et capitulo, habendum sibi et haeredibus et successoribus suis; in this case, albeit they be persons in their naturall capacity to them and their heires, yet because the grant is made to them in their politique capacity, it shall enure to them and their successors. And so if the king do grant lands to I. S. habendum, sibi et successoribus sive haeredibus suis, this grant shall enure to him and his heires.

B. having divers sonnes and daughters, A. giveth lands to B. et liberis suis, et a lour heires, the father and all his children do take a fee simple joyntly by force of these words (their heires); but if he had no childe at the time of the feoffment, the childe borne afterwards shall not take.

These words (his heires) doe not onely extend to his immediate heires, but to his heires remote and most remote, borne and to be borne, sub quibus vocabulis (haeredibus suis) omnes haeredes propinqui comprehenduntur, et remoti, nati, el nascituri. And haeredum appellatione veniunt haeredes haeredum in infinitum. And the reason wherefore the law is so precise to prescribe certaine words to create an estate of inheritance, is for avoiding of uncertainty, the mother of contention and confusion.

(To be continued.)

GOOD CONVERSATION.-The art, so far as it is not a natural gift, can be acquired by almost anyone. It requires only a quick intelligence, which is the gift of so many of the present age, and which is stimulated by so many of the conditions amid which we live, and a protracted effort to acquire information, to choose words with discrimination, and to cultivate ease of expression. It is aided by a good memory, by the possession of wit or imagination, but its real essentials are very few. The true method of seeking the art is in reading the best books, in trying to interpret the best art, to master the more important problems of the time, in training the mind so that it can think worthy thoughts, and in intercourse with other minds that have followed the same course. Its possession by all those who might attain it would give society a charm which it does not possess, and would make conversation one of the greatest agencies of culture as well as one of the highest possible delights. All happy influences are uppermost where the talk is good. They are rather in the background where it is aimless, fallacious, inexcusably weak or dull.-Providence Journal.

"FLICKER-TAILS."-Mr. Thompson offered the following resolution recently in the North Dakota Legislature:

WHEREAS, North Dakota is now placed in the galaxy of States destitute of a familiar cognomen by which those born upon her fertile soil can be known; and

WHEREAS, Those born in the other several States of the Union are called by some characteristic appellation peculiar to the State of his nativity; and

WHEREAS, Bountiful nature, in her kindness and prodigality, and in the eternal fitness of things, has placed among the numerous denizens of her broad prairies an animal of order rodenti, family scinridæ known as the spermophilus Richardsoni, called vulgo the flicker tail gopher, as a "thing of beauty," and "a joy forever," except in certain cases; and WHEREAS, The spermophilus Richardsoni, or flicker-tail gopher, is a creature epidemic to this land of the Dakotas; therefore, be it

Resolved, That we, the House of Representatives of the State of North Dakota, do by this resolution christen every child born, or who may hereafter be born, within the boundaries of this State, with the name "flicker-tail," which christened name shall be applied in the same man. ner as the word "sucker" is applied to the children born in Illinois, "wolverine" to those born in Michigan, “badger" to those born in Wisconsin, etc.—Indianapolis News.

WHY DENOUNCE PATERNAL GOVERNMENT? During a recent period many of the newspapers and magazines of the United States, with some European periodicals, as well as a large class of politicians, have on every notable occasion, when a new idea in legislation, political economy, or any variation in the conduct of governmental affairs, has been suggested, not strictly in the old well worn rut, set up the familiar and unceasing cry, "It is paternal government," "It is paternalism run mad," "It is only a step from socialism and communism," and other similar expressions of ridicule and contempt. It is proper to designate a few of the leading public measures proposed of late years, which invariably bring forth the potential charge and familiar refrain, that they are of a socialistic tendency and would, if adopted, surely lead to ruin and “paternal government." For instance, Senator Blair's bill which proposed to distribute the "surplus" in the United States Treasury among the several States of the Union in aid of the cause of public education, seems to be peculiarly obnoxious to many people in this respect. The fact that the United States Government has practically done this very thing many times and many years ago, by giving to the several States of the Union vast tracts of public lands and public land scrip, to aid and encourage the cause of education, appears either to have been forgotten by these anti-paternalists, or else they regard it as not in point. But why is it not in point? It is " on all fours" with it.

At the time when the United States Government gave such liberal and invaluable aid to the cause of public education in the States, the newspaper press did not raise the cry of " paternalism run mad." With hardly an exception the press wisely favored the necessary legislation. If the General Government has surplus funds in the Treasury, it would be interesting to have some able opponent of "paternalism" point out either an economic, a legal or a constitutional distinction between the past legislation of Congress on this subject of aiding education, and Senator Blair's proposed plan for the distribution of the surplus. I mean a distinction with a difference. Again, the bill for the proposed establishment of a "Postal Telegraph System," to be owned and operated by the Government, brings

forth the same identical lamentations in an emphasized form, because it is plainly a stab at a big monopoly.

It may be observed, however, that, at the present time, there is an objection of some force to this idea of having a Government telegraph system. The "vox populi" is to a certain degree justified in declaring that if it probably would cause as much trouble and turmoil to fill the offices in the proposed telegraph system as it now does to fill the postoffices, then the Government should let it alone. The main objection is, that to make the General Government do such things "is to involve us in a sea of trouble and end in a cast-iron despotism," because of the vast power which the control of the official patronage would give to unscrupulous politicians. But the remedy for this great administrative evil is easy and simple-make the "Civil Service Laws" as firm and inflexible as the United States Army regulations, and the spoils system with its attendant train of evils, and the objections to "Paternal Government" will be immensely reduced. The nightmare of "a heavy cast-iron despotism" will vanish under complete "Civil Service Laws," that is, under a purified system of government, just as surely as nightmares will depart from the vision of man when his physical system is made healthy and pure. We very much need education on this feature of the administration of the Government, and Senator Blair's idea to educate the people, tends in the right direction of a great public need, whether it be practicable or not. And until "Civil Service Reform " becomes a genuine reality, the less legislation we have of the so-called paternal tendency the better, except it be in the matter of more universal education. But just think how many things the Government now does, and attempts to do, that are, of a much more "paternal" character than those aforesaid. For example, collecting private debts for private individuals, and enforcing contracts between individuals, even whether they be citizens or not, with all the power of the Government. It even looks after the food and health of individuals. But I will not enlarge.

Again, the loudest shrieks against " paternalism" are heard when it is proposed to prevent the formation and continuation of the colossal monopolistic "trusts" of our day, by legisla

tive enactments, so as to crush out those semi-conspiracies and soulless entities organized contrary to the unwritten law of the land, with vast aggregations of capital, controlled by the keenest and most unscrupulous brains, for the avowed purpose of raising and maintaining the prices of the necessaries of life, of transportation rates and traffic generally, contrary to the laws of supply and demand. It is urged that such prohibitory legislation is paternal, dangerous and impolitic, because it presumes to interfere with private business enterprises.

Do such objections constitute. the sort of statesmanship that should be encouraged, as we draw near the close of the nineteenth century, in an age of steam and electricity? I regard government as a quasi corporation established by mankind for the purpose of attaining a civilizing and moral object.

One party decries it as teeming with mischief to man, while another lauds it as the means by which he will attain his highest dignity and excellence. But be this as it may, society may take such measures as seem fitting for the attainment of that which the governing voice decides to be for the good of the greatest number.

That the suffrage of the majority is by no means a scientific test of social good and evil, is unfortunately too true; but, in practice, it is the only test we can apply, and the refusal to abide by it means revolution or anarchy. The purest despotism that ever existed is in its ideal historical conception as much based upon that will of the majority, as the republic of the United States, although it may not at first blush seem so. Law is the expression of the opinion of the majority, and it is law, and not mere opinion, because the many are strong enough to enforce it.

I fortify my views inter alia with Prof. T. H. Huxley's. He says: "I am as strongly convinced as the most pronounced individualist can be, that it is desirable that every man should be free to act in every way which does not limit the corresponding freedom of his fellow man. But I fail to connect that great induction of sociology with the practical corollary which is frequently drawn from it; that the State-that is, the people in its corporate capacity-has no business to meddle with anything but the administration of justice and external