equally certain to fail of their object." Annexation may fail so long as the present editor of the "Journal" dictates its politics; but how if an annexationist should hereafter occupy his stool? Seriously, our Canadian brothers are unnecessarily worried by the ghost of annexation. They remind us of Byron's woman who asked, "When will the ravishing begin?" This nervousness of the Canadians recalls to us an incident in a theater, where a very uncomely maiden, straying at night in a forest, exclaimed, "I'm afraid to be alone in the dark." To which a god of the gallery responded, "No danger in your case, Miss!" Nobody here wants to annex them so long as they prefer to be tied to the apron-string of the good mother-country.
We have plenty of trouble here with our own mixed population, without desiring to add a mixed English and French country; and lawyers especially would not welcome courts carried on in the French language. (One of the addresses at the late meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, the proceedings of which are recorded in the same num ber of the "Journal," was delivered in French.) If our hyperborean brethren are content with the degree of prosperity which attends them, let them wrap themselves in their fur coats, pull down their earflaps, and hug themselves in their pleasing fancy. We would not be at the expense of disturbing them, for at some future day they will inevitably gravitate to us. Second : the " Journal " very pointedly takes the Chief Justice to task for speaking of the Pope as "the head of Christendom " — " when the influence of the head of Christendom lessened," was his precise phrase. The " Journal " saVs " England is a part of Christendom," and " the King or Queen of England is head of the church so far as the British Empire is concerned." That is the notion of the Protestant part of the British Empire, no doubt, but the Chief Justice expressed the notion of the Roman Catholic part. It is a mere matter of opinion and taste, and we have no fault to find with him on the latter score, for speaking of the Pope, at the time in question, as the head of Christendom, rather than of Henry Eighth. Moreover the learned editor seems to be forgetful that a large body of Canadians would enter tain the same opinion and employ the same phrase. But there can be little question that the Chief Justice is right, speaking historically, in considering that the Pope was much more nearly " head of Christendom" than the King of England. It would require a robust imagination even now to regard Queen Victoria as the " head of Christendom." We might as well set up a claim for our own President.
A Wreck of a Man. — The " Chicago Evening Post" gives an account of a declaration filed by
Oakley H. Creel in an action against the Chicago & Rock Island Railroad Company for personal injuries. The plaintiff was a brakeman in the employ of the defendant, and if his statement is accurate he is also a broken man, and the worst broken known to the law. The names of his attorneys are not divulged. This is to be regretted, for we should take real pleasure in handing down the names of the ingenious gentlemen to future ages, and commending their statement as a precedent in almost any kind of a case of corporeal injury. The following contains the meat of the matter : — "And the plaintiff avers that owing to the broken and defective condition of said stirrup as aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, the said loosened and unsecured end of said stirrup was by the weight of the body of said plaintiff when the plaintiff stepped upon and into it as aforesaid, pushed, forced and swung around under said car, so that the foot of said plaintiff then and there slipped and was forced off said stirrup, and he, the said plaintiff, with out his fault, violently and with great force fell and was thrown down under the said car and upon the track and roadbed of said railroad, and was struck and run upon and against and was dragged for a long distance, to wit, 500 feet, by said car; and the plaintiff then and there by reason of falling and being thrown down and struck and dragged by said car as aforesaid was paralyzed in the left leg and his left hip was thrown and forced out of joint and his spine injured, and he was otherwise then and there greatly bruised, hurt, wounded and the bones of his body broken, to wit: The bones of his legs, to wit, the bones of his right leg, the bones of his left leg, and the bones of his ankles, to wit, the bones of his right ankle, the bones of his left ankle and the bones of his feet, to wit, the bones of his right foot, the bones of his left foot and the bones of his shoulder joints, to wit, the bones of his right shoulder joint, the bones of his left shoulder joint and the bones of his neck and the bones of his wrists, to wit, the bones of his right wrist, the bones of his left wrist and the bones of his hand, to wit, the bones of his right hand, the bones of his left hand and the bones of his back and of his body, and he was permanently injured in the organs of his body, to wit, in his right lung, in his left lung, in his spleen, in his stomach and in his bowels; and he was greatly and permanently injured in his senses, to wit, in the sense of sight, the sense of hearing, the sense of smelling, the sense of feeling and the sense of taste; and he was greatly and permanently injured in his right eye, in his left eye, his right ear, his left ear, his nose, his mouth, his tongue and his fingers, and in the power of sensation of his body; and he was greatly and permanently injured in his brain, to wit, the matter of his brain, and in his mind, to wit, his reason ing faculties, his judgment, his imagination and his mental processes; and he became sick, sore, lame and disordered, and so remained for a long space of time, to wit, hitherto, during all of which time he, the plaintiff, suffered great pain and agony of mind and body, and was and is hindered and prevented from attending to and transacting his per sonal affairs and matters of business, and by means where of the plaintiff was compelled and forced to and did incur
