well be distrusted, and the compulsion in question should be exercised until such a taste is outgrown or overcome. The result of this new law will be watched with great interest. It will not execute itself, and everything will depend upon the machinery provided for the enforcement of it and the fidelity with which that machinery is put and kept in motion.
Hazing. — The New York Legislature also passed a law directed against hazing in colleges and schools. This sprang from the recent "unfortunate" incident at Ithaca, by which a poor woman lost her life through the vicious and reckless act of students aimed at other students. This is the second fatal "misfortune" growing out of hazing which has happened at Cornell. It is much to be regretted that the perpetrators cannot be detected and punished as severely as the law will allow. There is no fitter place for the education of the vulgar and mischievous rowdies, masquerading under the disguise of gentle men, who indulge in such senseless and wicked conduct, than the State prisons, and we should heartily rejoice to see them all sent there. One example would be sufficient. Mr. Henry Wade Rogers, the well-known law writer and president of the Northwestern University, at Evanston, Illinois, has wisely adopted the heroic remedy of expelling, peremp torily and unconditionally, every young man detected in hazing. This also will probably prove efficient, but where death results from these reckless acts, the penalty should be that of manslaughter. It will not answer to say, " Boys will be boys." That saying is just as silly as "Cow-boys will be cow-boys." But we await the working of this new law also with considerable curiosity. Both laws have the seeds of lethargy in them.
Ohio Citations. — A contribution to the " Weekly Law Bulletin,1" of Ohio, draws attention to the fact that at Cornell Law School comparatively few Ohio decisions are cited, while those of the States com pletely encircling that State, as Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylnania, are largely cited, as well as those of Wisconsin and Illinois. The corre spondent also states that when he was attending Harvard Law School "the explanation was franklygiven that the decisions of our State did not rank with those of other States. The order of relative merit at that time seems to have been about as follows: Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, California, Michigan, and Blackford's Indiana decisions. As to the reason for this dis crimination it probably originated in the prejudice
435
that existed and still exists, in many quarters, against an elective judiciary for short terms." Our own impression is that the Ohio decisions are fully as meritorious as those of Kentucky, California, Indiana, Illinois, or Wisconsin. If we were called on to array the decisions in order of merit, interest and import ance we should put them as follows: New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, and let the rest take their places as they could scramble for them. New York easily comes first as the creator of the equity law and on account of the vast mass, variety, and importance of its decisions. Perhaps those of Massachusetts average 'higher in judicial merit, but they must yield at the other points. They represent New England law fully and fairly, but the decisions of all the other New England States are of a high order. We cannot understand why Harvard should prefer Kentucky and California to Michigan, or why they should be given any special prominence. Certainly they are not of peculiar general authority. On the other hand, the Michigan Supreme Court consisting of Christiancy, Campbell and Cooley was one of the finest that our country ever had. There are several other States whose adjudi cations are excellent and should be preferred to several of the States mentioned above, notably Alabama, and at some periods, South Carolina and Georgia.
NOTES OF CASES. Another Tooth Case. — Unless the jocose news paper reporter is exercising his vein of pleasant in vention, a novel case of tooth-law has arisen In Germany. It comes to us that a man with a tooth ache resorted to a dentist. The stump proved to be a difficult one to draw, and when it was out it was of such curious shape that the dentist declared he would keep it as a curiosity. His patient however thought he would like to keep it for himself and claimed it; but the dentist, on the ground that a tooth, when drawn with the free consent of a patient, is ownerless property as soon as it leaves the jaw, refused to give it up. The patient at once entered an action against the dentist. We think he should succeed. Is the man who goes about with a " stump-eradicator " on the western prairies, entitled to the stumps? By no means. Much less should a surgeon have the privi lege of holding and exhibiting — perhaps for gain — any offending member of the human frame, especially one of abnormal structure, when its original proprietor has chosen or been compelled to sever it from the bulk of his body. Any custom to the contrary would be void as contra bonos inolares. We take it that the time has long gone when the tooth-drawer could carry the evidences of his skill in a bag with him to
