that one can scarcely stretch himself without hitting his neighbor. The law of the land however makes no allowance for such a state, rather, the more of us the more reason to so move about that you do not tread on each others toes. This daily commission of torts is more likely due to the wilfulness of mankind. They possess wills to have their way regard less of the cost to others, which is a benefi cent provision for the lawyers who were in tended to encumber the earth. If every inhabitant of the globe went about at the end of a string held in the hands of counselors of the law, philosophers or even omnipotence itself, whose duty it would be to give a jerk and a long haul when a tort was about to be committed by a party or upon him, it is doubtful even then if man kind could be restrained from the commis sion of his torts. He might be safe from physical torts, trespasses and wrongs, but the most unruly organ of his body would still be at large to go on its wilful way. Though man might be helpless in a literal sense to do a wrong with force and arms, yet as long as the tongue can wag and the brain conspire with it to say the things that should not be said, he would be able to com mit a tort, do a wrong and injury to his neighbor. One of the bad habits of human ity is the torts of the tongue. The tongue is so balanced in many that it wobbles or swings on a pivot all the time, and with an equally balanced brain behind it, there are sure to be mental and legal breaches of the peace. Recovery in damages can always be had for torts or slanders of the tongue, provided one can prove that one suffered an actual resulting injury. This is a very difficult thing to do in a great many instances. If a slanderous remark caused one to lose em ployment or business, the proof of the result ing injury is a simple matter. But the in jury done by slander in so many instances is a mental one. People's heads and hearts

cannot be opened and exhibited to juries so that they may see the effect of a slander. Hence by far the greater number of slanders are without a remedy because of inability to prove a resulting injury. There may be an injury somewhere in the common mind of the community but it is not a subject-matter of proof. There are however slanders and slanders. Slanders that require proof of resulting in jury, and slanders that do not require any such proof. Slanders insinuating and sug gestive, without a remedy, and slanders that are slanders to merely utter them. The one is the stab in the back, the other is the blow in the face. When one is about to slander another there is a fair square way to do it, openly and above board, prepared to take the punishment the law of the land will give you. The slander without a remedy is for despicable cowards. Slanders that are slanders in the mere utterance of them are those in which their injurious character is a fact of common notoriety, established by the common con sent of men, and courts consequently take judicial notice of them. The utterance of them necessarily imports damages, and, there fore, resulting injuries and actual damages done do not have to be proven. The proof of the slander is the proof of the damage, and it is for the jury to estimate the same in the coin of the realm. Torts of the tongue which have been adjudged slanders in themselves, actionable per se, are words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party some criminal offense, involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished. To call a man a thief at once injures him in the estimation of his neighbors and places him in a position where, if the slander is true, he could be arrested, indicted, and deprived of his lib erty, bringing upon him irreparable loss and damage. A slander per sc is not without its distinc