EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT

much better use if the law' book publishers would only adopt a good grade of cloth or buckram binding- instead of the ' law-sheep ' they now use. The life of the best of this law-sheep, exposed on open shelves to the action of an atmosphere laden with the gases thrown off in the combustion of either soft or hard coal, averages less than four years, while a good article of cloth binding, subject to the same conditions, will last indefinitely. Some eight years ago, when I took charge of this library, my first innovation was to substitute a heavy canvas instead of the law-sheep that had been used on our rebindings. Out of the ten thousand volumes bound in this material now on our shelves only one single volume has gone back to the bindery, and this upon a book which was subjected to the most con stant and severe use. Of the new books which have come in during this same period, and which were bound in law-sheep, fully onefifth have already had new bindings and hundreds of others are in a condition requiring it." A MODERN TENDENCY.

Once more the methods of procedure of England and the United States in criminal cases, and in civil as well, are compared, much to the disadvantage of the latter, by Francis M. Burdick in the July North A'merican Review (V. 188, p. 126), entitled "Swiftness and Certainty of Justice in England and the United States." The author recites the va rious reasons which account for th£ greater celerity of English trials, with which our readers have now become familiar. Like most who have carefully investigated the facts, he believes the key to the situation is iri the infrequency of reversals on appeal for errors in the admission of evidence in England. The practice of appellate courts in this country of presuming the materiality of such an error, and granting a new trial merely upon proof

417

of the error, is responsible for much of the delay at nisi prius, because the judge of the lower court, fearful of a reversal, avoids inter ference with the conduct of the trial, and long wrangles on the admissibility of testimony ensue. An important reason for the absence of 'this in English trials is the higher quality of judges, for there they are taken from the highest ranks of the bar and are paid salaries commensurate with the importance of their position, being about five times the best sala'ries paid in this country for like service. The respect of the attorneys for the opinions of the court is equaled only by the confi dence of the public in their judgments. In some of our states this latter quality is lost by their system of electing judges. The desira bility of the elective judiciary, however, is a fallacy so deeply rooted in popular fancy that states which have submitted to the incubus are unlikely for a long time to be able to escape. The increased control of the presiding judge over the trial of the cause is, however, a remedy quite within our reach, and it is interesting to note the increasing demand for a change in the policy of appellate courts. Even the conservative Supreme Court of Massachusetts is showing a tendency to require the excepting party to show that the evidence improperly admitted may have materially affected the jury. This is a task, however, which pre sents serious difficulties. To show specifically the effect of any given part of the testimony is obviously impossible, and there are few guides for. the appellate court in determining such a question eyen from -an examination of the record. It means, therefore, that the appellate court must examine the entire record and pass its own judgment upon the importance of the evidence in question. This solution of the problem is not without its objections and its difficulties, but we believe that the tendency of the times is clearly in that direction.