wood river. It is thought that if the bed of this stream were paved it would provide an excellent bicycle path which would be useful from June until October. "A delegation of citizens of Squakum county, Pennsylva nia, waited upon Representative Bunkum of their district a few days ago to urge immediate action looking toward the improvement of Butternut river. It is thought that the expenditure of a few million dollars would render this stream navigable for rafts in the freshet season. Representative Bunkum persuaded the committee on rivers and harbors to give the delegation a hearing, and the visitors went back home convinced that their claims would lie recognized." Conscientious Scruples. — The law makes great allowance for conscientious scruples of its subjects in matters of formality, such as refusing to kiss the book in swearing, but has never extended its leniency so far as to embrace matters of serious moment to the public. Thus Miss Susan Anthony was punished for voting, notwithstanding she con scientiously believed she was performing a duty in cumbent on her as a " citizen. " In England (Queen v Morley, 8 Q. B. Div. 571), one of the " Peculiar People" — a sect resembling our "Christian Scien tists " — the court set aside a conviction of manslaugh ter for refusing to call medical aid to his sick child, who died, as was alleged, but not proved, in conse quence of the refusal. The Pennsylvania court, how ever (Heineman's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 112), deprived a father of the custody of his young children for re fusing to call a physician to attend them when ill, and for pricking their infant's skin and rubbing in an irritating oil instead. The greatest stretch of tender ness in this regard that has come to our notice is legislative and English. In the Vaccination Act is a clause excusing rfon-compliance where people have "conscientious scruples " against vaccination. How the question of the propriety of vaccination can be elevated into the region of morals passed our ken or conjecture. If certain ones disbelieve in it and abhor it as a medical practice, we should consider that to be a medical or sanitary objection, but cer tainly not a conscientious objection. But the Act says " conscientious," and thus this scientific precau tion for the general health may be defeated by the pig-headed and maudlin objection of ignorant cranks. The London Law Journal says : — "In the sphere of religion or morals a reservation in favor of weak or morbid consciences may be all very well, for such consciences have, or believe themselves to have, a mandate higher than that of any human law — a mandate which they dare not disobey; but on a scientific question like that of vaccination, conscientious objection is ludic rously out of place. There is hardly an Act of Parliament to which the same principle might not logically be applied. Take the Local Government Act. Parliament says drains are to be constructed. ' But I have a conscientious objec tion to drainage,' says the faddist (many have). 'You
must give your children, when ill, proper medical attend ance,' says the law. ' But I have a conscientious objection,' says the parent of the Peculiar People persuasion, ' to such unspiritual methods. I prefer to follow the Apostle James — to pray, and anoint with oil.' Here is obviously the germ of social disintegration. The whole theory of law is that the individual must bow to the expressed will of the community of which he is a member. Honesty of inten tion cannot justify anti-social perverseness. The law is meant to coerce the man with the ill-regulated, if conscien tious, mind, in the interests of all." A precisely parallel instance would be the excus ing of a passenger on an infected vessel, or one from an infected country, from going into quarantine, be cause he had conscientious scruples against comply ing with the inconvenient but necessary regulation. Not Law Books. — A Missouri judge begins a recent opinion as follows: " Delenda est Carthago. Error, un repentant, must be destroyed. Gentle reader, if you have ever chanced to wander through that wilderness of undi gested volumes which Judge Leonard on one occasion said were not law books, but only Missouri Reports, you may hap have encountered the case of Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165, 22 S. W. 455, and 27 S. W. 440. If not, it shall be my pleasing task now to unfold to you the prominent points and salient characteristics of that cause celibre." We clip the foregoing paragraph from " Case and Comment." We were thereby incited to turn up Hickman 7'. Green, and we find it one of those typi cal Missouri cases in which no two judges of either division of the court think alike on any point. Things are as much mixed up as "those babies" were in "Pinafore." There is only one good thing to be found in it, and that is the observation (by Sher wood, J., as nearly as we can tell from the report) : "this idea of searching the records for an unre corded deed" (of which the party had oral notice), "and calling it due inquiry to do so, reminds one of the anecdote of Nelson, who bidden to withdraw his vessel from a naval battle when he should see dis played a signal from his admiral's ship, and being told that the signal flag was flying, clapped the glass to his blind eye, and said, ' I don't see the signal! '" The felicity of this is enhanced by the fact that the deed in question had been destroyed by Nelson, the agent of one of the parties. A Cat in Chancery. — " Dog is already a wellrecognized head in the digests. (Probably if Cer berus got into law he would be accorded three heads.) If the harmless necessary cat goes on at the present rate, it will also be recognized as entitled to a de partment in the digests under that name. This is indicated by the following from Law Notes : — "The case of Harris v. Slater, which came up in the Chancery Division not long since, involved a rather unusual
