this corruption in high places, the Supreme Court has at the whipcrack of the Missouri Pacific Railroad sold its soul to the corpora tions, and allowed Rube ( >glcsby to drag his wrecked frame through this life without even the pitiful remuneration of a few pal try dollars. . . . llii.s very tribunal, after reading the evidence and hearing the argu ments of the attorneys, rendered a decision sustaining the judgment of the lower court, which decision was concurred in by six of the seven members of the court. This is, usually the end of such cases. . . . But not so in the ( Iglesby case. Three times was this case at the request of the railway attor neys opened for rehearing, and three times was the judgment of the lower court sus tained. But during this time, which ex tended over a period of several years, the legal department of this great corporation was not the only department which was busyin circumventing the defeat of the Oglesby case. The political department was very, very busy. Each election has seen the hoist ing of a railway attorney to the supreme bench, and when that body was to the satis faction of the Missouri Pacific, the onslaught to kill the Oglesby case began. A motion for a rehearing was granted, and at the hearing of the case it was reversed . . . and was sent back for retrial. . . . Again the jury rendered judgment in favor of Oglesby . . . and again the case was ap pealed to the Supreme Court. An election was coming on and the railroad needed yet another man to beat the Oglesby case. The Democratic nominating convention was kind and furnished him in the person of Fox . . . The railroad allowed the case to come up for final hearing, and Monday the decision was handed down, reversed and not remanded for retrial. The victory of the railroad has been complete, and the corrup tion of the Supreme Court has been thor ough." The defendant was fined $500, which was promptly furnished by his fellow citizens. The court filed a lengthy opinion in which the whole law of contempts is elaborately discussed. Among other important hold

ings is that where a contempt consists of scandalizing the court itself, it need not re late to a pending suit; also that the attempt of the Legislature to define what contempts the court should punish, and limiting its powers thereto was unconstitutional as an interference with the judicial department of the government; and that the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech was no pro tection to the defendant. The latter point is discussed at great length. Commenting on the article itself the court says: "In short the article attacks the honesty, integrity, and purity of every branch of the State Govern ment, and of the several officers, and then attacks the Democratic nominating conven tion of 1902." It would seem from this that defendant was guilty not only of contempt, but of a sort of sacrilege. The court refers to the rule of the civil law embodied in the advice of Maecenas to the Emperor Augus tus, when the latter desired to punish a his torian who had passed some stinging jests on him, that the best policy was to let such things pass and be forgotten. Caesar also said that to retaliate was only to contend with impudence and put oneself on the same level, and the Theodosian Code also declared that slanderers of majesty should be unpun ished, for, if this proceeded from levity, it was to be despised; if from madness, it was to be pitied; and if from malice, it was to be forgiven. CONTRACTS. (NEGOTIATION BY TELEPHONE— LEX Loci.) CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.

In Bank of Yolo v. Sperry Flour Co., 74 Pacific Reporter 855, the Supreme Court of California holds that a contract made by telephone between parties in different coun ties is to be regarded as made in that coun ty in which the proposition of the one is accepted by the other. 'It says: "A con tract is supposed to be made at some place and the place where it becomes complete is the place where it is made. If a contract is made by exchange of letters or telegrams. it is held to have been made at the place