Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/577

Harvard Law Review. Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.50 PER ANNUM 35 CENTS PER NUMBER. Editorial Board. John G. Palfrey, Editor-in-Chief. Wirt Howe, Treasurer. William W. Moss, Eugene H. Angert, Charles O. Parish, Joseph P. Cotton, Jr. Sanford Robinson, Edward W. Fox, Dean Sage, Jr., Roy C. Gasser, Graham Sumner, George B. Hatch, Joseph Warren, Augustine L. Humes, Beekman Winthrop, Arthur W. Machen, Jr., Bruce Wyman. A Correction. — March 14, 1899. Dear Mr. Editor, — As soon as our mistakes are irretrievable, they stand forth to our sight flamboyant. By a perversion which wronged my memory I made George Herbert say : " Wiio sweeps a room as in Thy cause," instead of "as for Thy laws." Will you let me make the correc- tion now, and oblige. Yours very truly, O. W. Holmes. The Late Lord Herschell. — The late Right Hon. Farrer Baron Herschell devoted to the service of England and of the common law a mind accurate, clear, and profound, made doubly precious by its tireless energy. His career covered a period of nearly half a century, including service as barrister. Member of Parliament, Solicitor General, and twice as Lord Chancellor during the last ministries of Mr. Gladstone. The nervous strain of this long period of unresting labor told so greatly on his strength that it was with foreboding that he accepted his position on the Anglo-American Commission, in which last service he died, deeply mourned here and in England. The Supreme Court of the United States adjourned in reverence to his memory. To his profession Lord Herschell gave the fullness of a firm and mathe- matical mind His opinions, though at times prolix, are accurately and logically developed, lucid in their treatment of intricate states of fact, convincing in their exposition of the law. His power, his conscientious deference to tradition, his determined conviction, are aptly illustrated by his repeatedly quoted opinion in Allen v. Flood. His manner when hear- ing causes was at times strangely impatient, almost arrogant, carrying to the extreme the forensic method of arguing with the counsel. A similar unbending sternness led to his determined refusal while Lord Chancellor