28o
The Green Bag,
as a sample of the work done by his house an enlarged chromo of Tillman, which was so natural that no one could fail to recognize it as Lieutenant-Governor Tillman, who was as well known by his pictures as is Gover nor Beckham in this State. The agent car rying his picture of Tillman would go to a house, ask for the head always, and with the man would begin to talk about securing a contract to enlarge a picture of any member of the family. After a few minutes' con versation he would display his sample, the p'vture of the slayer of Gonzales. This would invariably bring the talk around to the Tillman case, and the pretended agent would draw out of the man an expression of opinion on the case. He would obtain the name of the man, and after leaving the house—always without accepting any money, but with a promise to call later for the order—would put down in a book the name of the man, and whether he was for or against Tillman. This was done in every house of the county. Not one was missed, and at the end of the time, when the trial was to begin, the at torneys of Tillman were furnished with in alphabetical list of the entire male popula tion of the county eligible for jury service, and opposite the name of each man was a memorandum showing how he stood on the case. When a man was called who was on the list as being opposed to Tillman and in fevor of convicting him, this man would be forced to state that he had expressed an opinion in the case, and was therefore in eligible for service on the jury. This was the way Tillman's attorneys secured a jury which was composed of men who had all expressed themselves beforehand as favoring an ac quittal." IN the American Lawyer for February, R. Cleveland Coxe thus comments on divorce in France: In regard to divorce, there is much to be learned from France. In the first place, the causes for divorce are very liberally accord ed by the Code. One does not have to
commit adultery to obtain divorce. Very slight causes which show an apparent unsuitability of the spouses for life in common practically open the door to divorce. Even persistent application on the part of both parties for divorce, on the ground that life as man and wife is not possible, was sufficient to dissolve the union. An effort is now being made to grant divorce on the application of only one of the parties for this cause mentioned. While this step is not to be recommended, on the ground that his tory, in connection with Rome, shows that a limit must be placed somewhere in order that marriage may be respected, still, where a judge in divorce may use a proper discre tion, it is very doubtful whether the power would be abused in America. But where both husband and wife wish to be divorced, and persist in this step for a considerable time, it would be moral to facilitate the gratification of this mutual desire. . . . French procedure in divorce is admirable. According to the Code the petitioner pre sents personally his requête, whereupon the judge, if he deems a prima facie case has been made out, issues an order for the two parties to appear before him privately. The parties are heard on the points set out in the requête and the judge attempts a con ciliation. If this conciliation is not possible, permission is given to the petitioner to get out a summons. This permission or order is subject to appeal. As in all civil matters, the case is tried by a judge without a jury. There are other delays. The procedure, however, except as to the jury, is not unlike ours after the point referred to above. . . . The feature of privacy cannot be too much enlarged upon in divorce proceedings. Not only does article 239 of the Civil Code pro vide that evidence can be heard with closed doors, but press reports are forbidden under a fine as high as 2000 francs as a maxi mum. . . . The French system of concilation joined with privacy in divorce evidence is putting the legal horse before the legal cart. Not so a decree яш. . . . It may be asked—does this admirable French system as to divorce mark a diminu
