many, of Bacon himself? We know that he once spelled his own name Bakon. How do we know that Shakespeare did not dictate his plays to an amanuensis? We may work ourselves up into a state of doubt on almost any subject, if we listen only to the difficulties and improbabilities. It seems to us that there is much more proof and probability that Shakespeare wrote these plays, than there is of the life and works of Jesus Christ. Certainly there is much more contemporary evidence. If Colonel Ingersoll can credit the Shakespeare legend, we do not see why we should strain at the Gospels. But now there is just one perfectly conclusive piece of contemporary evi dence that Shakespeare was not illiterate, but on the contrary was pretty well educated for his time and station, and that is the familiar declaration of Ben Jonson that "he had little Latin and less Greek." We have never seen this contradicted, but it must be discredited before the common world can be made to believe that he could not write. Rufus Choate knew a great deal of Latin and Greek, and yet his signature was an abominable scrawl, and so was all his hand writing. We once kept a letter from David Dudley Field (who wrote a hand that had to be interpreted by faith and not by sight) by us a year in order to translate two words, which at length turned out to be macte virtute. A man's signature is ordinarily the most careless and illegible part of his writing. We frequently receive letters, the signatures of which we cannot read, but which are yet evidently the produc tion of educated and intelligent minds. It is to be regretted that the argument founded on handwriting has been imported into this discussion, for it is the most misleading and inconclusive of arguments, as every lawyer knows. An expert in handwriting can" prove anything, just as he wishes, or is paid.
Judges' Wills. — The "London Law Journal" publishes Sir James Stephen's last will at length. It is not long. Here it is: "This is my last will. I give all my property to my wife, whom I appoint sole executrix." The "Law Journal" says this is the shortest will ever made by a judge, and Lord Mans field comes next, who disposed of his estate, amount ing to half a million pounds, on half a sheet of notepaper. After a few specific legacies, he gave the rest to his nephew as follows: "Those who are dearest and nearest to me best know how to manage and improve, and ultimately, in their turn, to divide and subdivide the good things of this world, which I commit to their care, according to events and con tingencies which it is impossible for me to foresee or trace through all the mazy labyrinths of time and chance." On the other hand, Lord Treasurer Dorset employed line upon line of the most uxorious rhetoric.
praising his common-law wife as if she were "the superior person," just to confer a very simpie gift. Perhaps however Mrs. Dorset had an ample settle ment. Probably so, for otherwise my lord would not have had that "unspeakable love, affection, estima tion and reverence" which he testamentarily con fesses. A short will or deed or contract always testi fies to the legal knowledge of the draftsman. Only one who perfectly knew the law, and what he de sired, and how to express his wishes, could have afforded to risk so much on so little verbiage. We once knew a distinguished lawyer, who deeming him self at the point of death, employed his brother, his law partner, to draw his will. The draftsman began in the old-fashioned pious way, " In the name of God, amen," etc. The paper was read over to the sick man, who rose up in bed and denounced it, saying, " Do you suppose I am going to leave such a thing as that for the lawyers to laugh at? " and pro ceeded to dictate a short and simple will. The re action saved him. From that moment he got well, and is now practicing law at the age of eighty-four. And yet so inconsistent is human nature, that he always insisted on "This indenture witnesseth," in a deed, although the thing and the grammatical form were matters of the past. He used to defend it on the ground that clients were accustomed" to it and it was best to humor them. But his will was quite another matter.
Challenging Judges. — The " New York Law Journal" and the "Albany Law Journal" concur in disapproving a recent Missouri statute, " allowing an accused person to swear away his case from the legally elected judge on the ground of prejudice, with out calling for any proof of the existence of such prejudice." We agree with these writers. Such a practice might very well result in raising an unfounded prejudice against the fairness or integrity of a partic ular judge, and thus wreck his usefulness. A prisoner may not change the place of trial on his unsupported allegation that he cannot get a fair trial in the venue laid. He must show reasons for his belief. So he ought to substantiate any act which necessarily im plies unfairness on the part of the judge assigned.
"Book News." — Can any good come out of St. Paul? a good many lawyers are asking, in view of that series of weekly reporters which a grave com mittee of lawyers have recently stigmatized as a "pestilence." This maybe, but we do not exactly see how lawyers are going to avoid "taking it." The West Publishing Company are now putting out a new monthly periodical, under the title at the head
