Here is a bill which was introduced into the Nevada Legislature the other day to promote the pleasure of the people in places of public amuse ment : — Section I. It shall be unlawful for any spectator in any place of amusement to wear a covering for the head which shall reach more than three inches above the crown of the head, and any person wearing such a covering for the head shall be guilty of a misde meanor, and shall be fined in a sum of not less than $5 nor more than $10, or imprisoned in the countyjail not less than two days or more than five days : provided that this act shall not apply to women over thirty-five years of age. Section 2. The act shall take effect on and after the 25th day of February, a. d. 1889. We commend this bill to the attention of our own legislators, though we doubt the expediency of the proviso relating to women over thirty-five years of age. They are frequently as vain as some of their younger sisters. Let it include the entire sex or none at all. "Sir" William Conrad Reeves, Chief-Justice of Barbadoes, just knighted by Victoria, is a col ored man. His mother was a full-blooded negress His father was a Scotch planter. The Chief-Jus tice began life as a printer. He has served as Solicitor and Attorney-General of the Colony, and resigned the latter because of a disagreement with Governor Sir John Hennessey on West Indian federation. He has served for six years as ChiefJustice. The "Canadian Law Journal" is responsible for the following : " The following clause is to be found in an Act respecting domestic and other animals, now in force in the Province of Manitoba, and was enacted with a view of striking terror into the breasts of certain evil-doers who had the ' per nicious ' habit of ' catching animals at large and using them without the owner's consent.' It reads as follows : 3. No person catching or detaining, or causing to be caught or detained, any animal that has been advertised by the owner, or by any person on his behalf, as lost or strayed, shall be liable to fine or imprisonment under this Act, un less he shall establish, to the satisfaction of the court in which the charge is made, that he took immediate and proper measures to inform the owner of the animal, or his agent, of its having been caught." Comment would be useless.
Following upon the heels of the public discus sion as to the legality of " trusts," comes a decision by Judge Barrett of the Supreme Court of New York, bearing upon the sugar " trust." The popu lar mind, ignorant of the technical meaning of the decisions of courts, and grasping simply at the shadow of things, has proclaimed this case as a direct and substantial blow at " trusts," and inter preted it to mean the complete and immediate overthrow of that gigantic partnership. Nothing, however, could be further from the facts, though the decision, of course, has a tendency in that direction. The facts, succinctly stated, are these : The " trust " rests upon a written agreement styled the trust deed. Und^r this deed all the corpora tions which are to enter the combination agree that all the shares of the capital stock of all the corporations shall be transferred tc a board, con sisting of eleven persons, trustees, joint tenants, subject to the purposes set forth in the deed, namely : To promote economy and reduce cost of manufactured article; to give to all the use of appliances used by the others; to furnish pro tection against unlawful combinations of labor; to protect against lowering standard of manufac tured articles, and generally to promote the inter ests of all parties in all lawful ways. The board was, in effect, to manage the allied and combined interests. The stock held in each individual cor poration was to be transferred to this board, who were to issue to each corporation, in lieu of said stock, trust certificates, in value equal to the ap praised net assets of each corporation. Thereafter the original corporate shareholder ceases to hold any further relations with his particular corporation, and thenceforward he is treated as a shareholder in the trust board. All profits arising from the business of each corporation is to be paid to the trust board, who blend all the profits received from all the corporations into one grand mass, and from that aggregation declare such dividends as may seem appropriate. Thus we have a series of corporations, existing and transacting business under the forms of law, without real membership or genuinely qualified direction, — mere abstract figments of statutory creation, as Judge Barrett says, without life in the concrete, or underlying association. This suit was a quo warranto against one of these corporations, asking for its forfeiture and dissolution. The court, in awarding the writ and
