The Editor's Bag by means of uniform state laws, to be more generally accomplished—a codifi cation restricted to settled principles of law and therefore not open to the objection of rigidity—the labors of such a commission would be lightened and its work would yield results of greater utility; but codification would be by no means essential to the success of the project. For a compilation of decisions arranged in logical sequence, readily to be found by the practitioner under the subjects to which they relate, would accomplish much the same purpose, though clothed in a more clumsy form, as a copiously annotated model statute or code. It can be seen at a glance that this method of treating state reports would effect a tremendous reduction in their bulk, as there would be absolutely no duplication, and useless reiteration of settled principles of law would be elimi nated. If we conceive this compilation being issued monthly, it would seem reasonable to suppose that two or three volumes a month, at most, would cover the entire field. The chief practical obstacles would be found in the natural inability of the human mind to imagine a radical change in conditions to which is has always been accustomed, in the drawbacks to unanimous state co-operation, and in the difficulty of assuring the permanence of the project without a federal statute. Moreover, the project to be successful would entail considerable expense, and could not be embarked upon without certainty that the skilled services of the right men could be secured. If men could be found who could safely be intrusted with such responsibilities, the separate publication of state reports would no longer be necessary, and it may well be asked whether the economy thus effected might not prove a
257
strong inducement to carry out the en terprise. THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH A Boston lawyer, yielding to our re quest for facetiae, furnishes the follow ing note of an incident which actually occurred :— In the trial of an accident case an Irish man was testfying for the plaintiff against a street railroad corporation. He had arrived on the scene after the smash-up which injured McGuinness his friend. He testified:— "I was walking along the street, and I saw the electric car strike Mac's team, and Mac landed on his head in the street. I ran up, and says I to Mac—" Counsel for the railroad jumped up and exclaimed, "We don't want to know what you said, tell us what you did." This more or less flustered the witness, so he started all over again, and when he came to where he came up to the scene of the acci dent, he again said: "and I says to Mac—" Counsel again indignantly interrupted,— "Don't tell us what you said, tell us what you did; what was the first thing you did when you came on the scene?" "The first thing I did?" shouted the witness, now thoroughly roused, "the first thing I did—I spoke." The Judge, jury and spectators had a quiet laugh, and the witness went ahead and told the story his own way. AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE We wish to thank the members of the profession who have seen fit to send us notes of those humorous incidents of professional practice which exert so tonic an influence upon the legal mind. Here is one which has been received from a lawyer in Iowa:— Under the Iowa law, in cases of felony pun ishable with imprisonment in the penitentiary, the Court is required to fix the penalty at not to exceed the maximum prescribed by statute. The statute fixes the maximum punishment for the crime of rape at confine ment in the penitentiary for life. One of our District Courts was confronted
