man was, or what influence he might be able to bring to bear, he was compelled to under go this sentence. He had to serve his sixty days at hard labor, too. Harrigan would not let him out and there was no power that could get him out. As a result of the en forcement of the judge's rule, pistol carrying showed a vast decrease in that section. On one occasion a prominent young man was arrested for carrying a pistol. He was given "fifty and sixty." The Governor of the State, two United States Senators, Con gressmen, and other influential men sought to have the sentence mitigated. But Harri gan was inflexible. "Breaking a rule de stroys it," he said, and he stuck to it. Sometime afterward a young man walked up to the judge in the office of a Memphis hotel. "Isn't this Judge Harrigan?" he said. "No, sir, I am John Harrigan," replied UKjudge. "But you are the criminal court judge of Shelby County, are you not?" "I am when on the bench," said the judge, "but here and elsewhere, outside the court room, I am John Harrigan." He had recognized the young man from the beginning. "By the way, Judge," continued the young man, "that 'fifty and sixty' rule of yours broke me of a very bad habit, that of carrying a pistol wherever I went." And the same thing might have been said of very many young men who had been broken of the same habit in the same way. THE duties and cares of the gentleman who conducts the column for law querists in the lay journals must surely be very consider able. He is expected apparently to act as guide, philosopher and friend, as well as le gal adviser, to his correspondents, and he is sometimes called upon to give advice as to other matters. The following reply, which appears in the law column of a Dublin week ly, shows, the trust which at least one corres pondent places in this method of gaining in formation. The first part of the query was evidently concerned with a breach of prom ise of marriage of a particularly tragic char acter. The paragraph runs: "A Kerry Lass. —Under the circumstances, as vou did not
break off the engagement, and as he agreed to the postponement of the marriage, I think you could recover damages from him in case he does not carry out his promise. The af fair, no doubt, is very sad, but you have your self partly to blame by postponing the mar riage. Why not write to him and say that you see no reason why the wedding should not come off now? The legal editor does not know a cure for warts on the hands." There is a trace of gruffness in the last sen tence which is scarcely consistent with the dignity and calmness of the editorial posi tion.— The Lam Times. WITH Warden Gilmour of Canada cham pioning the paddle in State institutions, and Allan Pinkerton standing out for whippings in the larger cities, the advocate of corporal punishment have received moral support from an unexpected quarter. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Iowa has just upheld what might be called the termin ate sentence of the nursery. It has defended the right to spank. The right to spank, the bench holds, is plural, parental, and alienable, and, it may be surmised, constitutional in its application. The case was one appealed from Judge Wade's court, the higher tribunal sustaining the right of a mother to chastise her own children and to delegate this right to an other under certain circumstances. One E. J. Rowe, eight years old, was chastised by his aunt and sued for damages. The mother has the same rights and duties as the father under the Iowa law regarding chil dren. "The mother," says the court, "is equally entitled to the 'care and custody' of the children. This must necessarily mean that she is equally entitled to control and discipline them. Being given this power it must follow that if the father may authorize another to punish his child the mother may do so."—Charities. THE following curious advertisement which appeared in the Morning Post last week, has the probably unconscious merit of the use of the term "gentleman of the long robe"
