McKinley and Bryan as Lawyers. Both orators were always in demand on patriotic public celebrations, either in the Western or Middle States. Notably among these was an oration delivered by Mr. McKinley at the Metropolitan Opera House on the evening of May 30, 1889, before a mass-meeting of delegations of the " Grand Army of the Republic," on the announced subject, the American Volunteer, and at which veterans of the New York Bar largely sought admittance. Both Mr. McKinley and Mr. Bryan are noted for the utterance ot clever epigrams and laconic sayings even in legal arguments, and it would be difficult for an expert critic to decide on this head a superiority. What may be termed Mr. Bryan's star law case will be found in the 156th volume of United States reports at page 335, in Connell v. Smiley, a peculiar case, elucidated by the opinion of Chief-Justice Fuller in favor of Mr. Bryan's client as appellee. The latter had begun in the Nebraska State court an action to quiet title to land which had been antagonistically sold at private sale and also under execution. The defendants, of whom the present appellant Connell was one, removed the cause into the Federal
397
Circuit Court, some intervenors residing in different States, although plaintiff and the main defendant were citizens of Nebraska. The Bryan client obtained decree quieting title in himself, when the Connell party saw fit to advantage his own wrong — if it was a wrong — claiming erroneous jurisdiction as to parties in the Federal court, and moved to remit the cause back to the State court. The former court declined to oust itself, and the Supreme Court at Washington affirmed. The opinion largely based upon the Bryan brief is valuable to the profession as settling the theretofore much mooted question, " Can jurisdiction separate two litigating citizens of the same State from their State court into a Federal court, because intervenors are citizens of another State? Thus Counsel lor Bryan was successful in all the tribu nals." At their home bars each competitor for the Presidency stands primus inter pares, and whomsoever may be chosen to succeed such legal incumbents of the White House as were Jefferson, Pierce and Arthur, the legal voter can satisfactorily make his choice for ballot in consonance with sympathy for a profes sional comrade.
THE TRIAL OF DR. JAMESON IN ITS LEGAL ASPECTS. THE political aspects of Dr. Jameson's trial fall beyond the purview of a legal magazine; its dramatic aspects are open to the same observation, and have, moreover, had ample justice done to them in the American press. Its legal aspects are, however, worthy of, and they will repay careful consideration. And first a word or two as to trial at bar, the juridical machin ery adopted in this cause celibre. In any case in which the Crown is a party, or its interests are involved, the Attorney-General may obtain a trial at bar, i.e. a trial in theory before the whole Queen's Bench Division-—
in practice before three or more judges of it. In modern times this method of procedure has been adopted only in cases of the widest importance. It may suffice to refer to the cases of Parnell and O'Connell, as instances of the class of cases in which it is brought in to operation. The details in which a trial at bar differs from an ordinary trial are not numerous. The preliminary steps, such as the lodging of pleas and the preparation of the jury panel, are taken in the Crown Office. A Crown Office official attends the court at the trial, calls over the names of the jurors, and receives their verdict when returned.
