did the speechmaking during that famous journey across the continent, while President Hayes and Lucy, his wife, entertained tbe temperance people and Y. M. C. A's.
In Omaha a dinner was given to the President and his party, and as usual it fell upon Mr. Evarts to make the after-dinner speech. In this speech, of course, he complimented the West and ended up his line of sweet sayings in the following anti-climax, delivered in the great orator's most dignified and impressive manner.
"Yes, gentlemen and ladies of Omaha, I like your great and growing West. I like her seltVmade men; and the more I travel West, the more I meet her public men, the more I am convinced of the truthfulness of the Bible statement that the wise men came—came from the East!"
Then came a great cheer, ending in shouts of laughter.
"The only thing that saved you," said Editor Rosewater of the "Bee" as he grasped Evarts' hand, "is the fact that there really are not ten men in this audience that didn't come from the East. Your anti-climax is taken as a compliment."
Horace Porter, lawyer and Ambassador to France, told me this story on Bishop Potter: It seems that Bishop Potter engaged a worldly coachman who formerly was employed by Bishop Farley of St. Patrick's, and afterward by Ricliard Croker, the patron saint of Tammany Hall.
"On Sunday morning," said General Por ter, "the new coachman drove Bishop Potter to the rear entrance of Grace church on Fourth avenue, and then started for a saloon across the way.
"Here, Patrick," said the surprised bishop, "don't go in there! Come back!"
But Patrick went right into the saloon, stayed a moment, and came out wiping his mouth on his sleeve.
"Didn't you hear me call you, Patrick?" asked the bishop sternly.
"Yis, yer reverence, I did—indade, l did!" said Pat regretfully.
"But why didn't you come back?"
"I would have stopped, yer reverence," said Pat humbly; "but on me soul—bad luck to me—I didn't have the price fer but one drink!"
In his second article on "Irregular Asso ciations," Professor George Wharton Pep per discusses "The Right to Act in the Com mon Name'1 and "The Right to Sue in the Common Name." On the first of the ques tions he says:
Summing up the discussion of the topic under consideration, the following' conclus ions may be stated: that in no case will a court either of law or equity inquire at the instance of a private citizen into the right of associates to act in corporate form; that in no case will a court of equity, even at the in stance of the attorney-general, inquire into the right of associates to act in corporate form; that either a court of law or a court of equity will at the instance of a private citi zen inquire whether or not associates possess the substantive right to do acts directlv af fecting the interest of the plaintiff; and that where a statute exists expressly recognizing the right of a court to inquire into the au thority for corporate action it will be so con strued as to limit the inquiry to questions of substance as distinguished from questions of form; and, in the case of substantial rights. to an investigation only of their acquisition by the associates and not to a consideration of whether the associates have rendered themselves to a judgment of forfeiture.
