Correspondence
271
USELESS BUT ENTERTAINING A number of Greeks who were very loquacious and poured forth a steady stream of inarticulate words in rapid succession had been testifying on behalf of the plaintiff. The opposing attor ney had used every means of stopping them, but to no avail. At last, losing all patience with them, he yelled at the witness testifying: "I tell you to stop! Keep quiet there, you! Shut up! Shut up, I say!" "Vel, I don't vant to say a word, only I vant to tell the truth — the truth — that is all, the truth — the truth, you know — the truth —" "Shut up, I say! The truth! The truth! Yes — that is the trouble with all of you Dagoes: You all want to tell the truth, and I object to
A Swede, the husband of the plaintiff in the personal injury suit, was testifying. "Do you remember the name of the proprietor of the fruit store on the corner, where they took your wife after she was injured?" asked the opposing attorney. "Sure, I remember it as if it was yesterday. I will never forget it. He brought her a glass of water." "Well, what was his name, then, if you re member?"
The witness here hesitated a few moments' and then said awkwardly, "Now, that is funny. I can't think of that name now." "Was it Baisilius Deamantopulos?" asked the attorney. "Yes, that is it. That is it. Why, I know it just like I know my own name." "Well, what was it, then, if you know it so well?" Here again the witness hesitated for a long while, and then, all perplexed, stammered out, "By God, that is funny! I can't think of that name now." A remarkably brief and effective summing up was once quoted by Lord James in an afternoon speech. It was delivered by an Irish judge trying a man for pig stealing. The evidence of his guilt was conclusive, but the prisoner insisted on calling a number of witnesses, who testified most emphatically to his general good character. After hearing their evidence and the counsel's speeches, the judge remarked: "Gentlemen of the jury, I think that the only conclusion you can arrive at is that the pig was stolen by the prisoner, and that he is the most amiable man in the county." — London Chronicle.
Correspondence PROFESSOR DODD'S PROPOSAL REGARDING DECISIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES To the Editor of the Green Bag : —
IN YOUR March number you refer editorially to "Prof. W. F. Dodd's radical proposal that the power to pass on questions of the constitutionality of state statutes be taken from state judges." If the reference here is to my article in the December number of the
Michigan Law Review, my language has pretty clearly been misunderstood. What I said was the following: "State courts now exercise power to declare state laws unconstitutional as violative of either the state or federal constitutions, and under present con ditions the decision of a state court in such a case is final. The really serious difficulty at present is with decisions of state courts declaring laws unconstitu tional as violativ of 'due process of law,' or the 'equal protection of the laws,' and
