: last year, being 31,727, no less than 16,232 had previously been inmates of the prison, being more than one half. The educational statistics (p. 35) are well worthy of notice at the present scholastic crisis. It is reported that last year, on admission, there were 619 Learned more than mere reading and writing, It is worthy of remark how the numbers wholly ignorant of letters and those who could "read well" approximate, and how both in reading and writing the imperfectly educated form the great majority. This may afford a valuable lesson to School Boards, not only as to the length of school attendance, but its quality. The largest number received during the year (p. 37) was in Glasgow, with 11,351 criminal, and 164 civil prisoners. Edinburgh ranks next, with 5723 criminal, and 93 civil prisoners. The lowest is Cromarty, with 2 criminal, and no civil prisoners. There were 24 civil prisoners for sums under £8, 6s. 8d.; 40 were committed for sums between £50 and £100; 20 for debts between £100 and £500; and 2 for sums above £500 and below £1000, and none for a greater sum (p. 53). 119 insane prisoners have gone through the county prisons during the year, and 28 offenders against the Revenue laws (pp. 46, 47). 26 deaths occurred during the year; 4 suicides, and no escapes (p. 54). The average profit from prisoner-work in the whole prisons is estimated at £2, 10s. 2d. The highest return is from the General Prison at Perth, being £5, 7s. 4d. (last year it was £8, 7s. 2d.), the lowest being Stirling, at 2s. 11d. There is the astonishing fact stated that, in three prisons, there is actually a loss arising from the work of prisoners, and on the whole prisons it is stated that the average loss per prisoner on work is 2d. If this be correct, then so far as regards profit from work, it were better to keep the prisoners in idleness. The net cost for each prisoner in the whole prisons is £20, 16s. 9d., the highest cost being Haddington, £88, 18s. Id. The lowest is Greenock prison, £15, 9s. 6d.; whilst Ayr approximates so close as to give £15, 18s. 9d. as the cost (p. 63). There may be circumstances in connection with the price of material, and the access to markets, united to the number of inmates, to explain so far the great differences of cost, but certainly it does require some explanation to account for the startling differences between prisons situated in nearly similar circumstances. There are several other very minute tables connected with prisons, their management, and discipline, all of which may be of importance to Prison Boards, though to the general public they are but of small interest. We cannot conclude these remarks without recognising the great labour which officials in courts and prisons must have had in preparation of these ponderous returns. We must add our admiration of the skill and pains bestowed in so brief a period in arranging the returns into so many and varied phases. We only fear that, with few exceptions, the great portion of this huge accumulation of figures will remain a sealed book and a dead letter. We do humbly suggest whether a more simple exhibition of leading facts might not suffice for every good and practical purpose, and whether the division and subdivision of matter into infinitesimal portions can repay the vast labour and expense bestowed in arranging and publishing these sixty-five folio pages of most uninviting and repulsive figures and columns, which bewilder any one not possessing more than stoical patience and saintly perseverance. In our next number we may enter on the more congenial analysis of the Judicial Statistics of our Courts, supreme and local. Н. В. The Month. The Commission to inquire into the Salaries and Expenditure of the Law Courts and Offices. This commission is to consist of Lord Lisgar (better known as Sir John Young), Mr. Trevelyan, M.P., Mr. Algernon West, Mr. Law, of the Treasury, and Mr. Rowsell, Superintendent of Contracts at the Admiralty. The legal profession has no reason to congratulate itself on the favour or even on the fairness with which it has been treated by the present Ministry, and the names of these commissioners will be considered by many as indicating a foregone conclusion in favour of wholesale and indiscriminating reduction on the part of the persons who have selected them. In the first place, some of the names are those of persons whom few public servants can hear without dislike and fear. Mr. Law, for instance, has been zealous, it is generally understood, in preventing many reasonable and urgent claims of deserving public servants for increased salary from being listened to. He is indeed nearly as unpopular as Mr. Lowe, though it is possible less deservedly. Ask any Sheriff-substitute in Scotland. Again, there is not one man on the commission of whose ability to put a just value upon legal work we can be sure. We do not speak of willingness to do so, which is too often wanting among public and commercial men; but on the point of ability we quote what the Law Times says, and only add that lawyers ought sharply to watch this commission, and to take care that it be not allowed to strike another severe blow at the dignity and credit of the profession. The Law Times says: "It is an odd feature, however, about the formation of the commission, that not one of its members can have the slightest knowledge, practical or theoretical, of the working of the offices concerning which they are going to inquire. The commissioners are, no doubt, men of business, but it is somewhat difficult to understand how it will be possible for them to estimate the relative value of work done and salary paid, if they are to be dependent entirely upon evidence produced before them, and are not to have the assistance of some gentlemen having experience in the working of the offices. Of all public offices the law offices are perhaps the most difficult to estimate at their true value without practical experience, because the duties of those engaged vary in value more than in any other public employment. A great number of the higher officials must necessarily have had a high class legal training, whilst others need have had scarcely any; and the same thing may be said of the lower offices. To distinguish between these positions, and to recommend such alterations as they may think desirable, will be one of the duties of the commissioners. They will run some risk of not being capable of distinguishing at all." The American Courts on Photographs as Evidence and Contributory Negligence. The American Courts have recently decided matters of universal interest, of which we select two, one relating to the value of photographs as evidence, and another to contributory negligence in crossing railways. In an action recently tried in Philadelphia, against an insurance company, to recover the amount of a policy, a photograph of the deceased was introduced as evidence of her apparent bodily condition at the time the insurance was effected. It was proved that the photograph was a truthful representation of her as she appeared at that time. On a motion for a new trial the Court said: "We think that the photograph, thus proved and verified by witnesses who saw the original at a period approximating so nearly the date of the contract of insurance, was competent to go to the jury as evidence of her apparent bodily condition at that time. If it was competent for witnesses to portray her physical appearance to the jury by words, it is difficult to assign any good reason why the same might not be done by a picture, recognised and proved by her friends to be a truthful and correct representation of her person." On the other question some cases have decided that a person crossing a railway to avoid contributory negligence is bound to look both ways; whilst others have held that if he looks in the direction from which the train is approaching that is sufficient. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have recently decided that if the traveller cannot see the track by looking out, whether by fog or other cause, he should get out, and, if necessary, lead his horse and waggon. And they say "there never was a more important principle settled than that the fact of the failure to stop immediately before crossing a railroad track is not merely evidence of negligence for the jury but negligence per se, and a question for the Court."-Law Times. Law Reporting. Our readers are aware, that this subject is receiving at present some attention in the State of New York, and, VOL. XVII. NO. CCII. — OCTOBER 1873. 2 Q as we think it desirable that the profession in Scotland should take into consideration the means of obtaining a single series of satisfactory standard reports, we venture to quote some sentences of a recent article on the subject in the Albany Law Journal : "Our own preference is for a reporter appointed by the judges. We have already expressed our dissent from the conclusion of the Committee, that the reporter should not be 'in any way dependent upon the court, whose favour and friendship it is his privilege to win and enjoy. We notice that the Nation in a recent article upon this subject, reached the same conclusion, but on precisely opposite grounds; for while the Committee follow the above conclusion, with the assertion that 'in a free country it is well that the courts should feel that they are acting before an intelligent and reading public, to whom their decision will certainly become known, through fearless and independent reporters,' the Nation asserts that 'such a reporter'-that is, one appointed by or dependent upon the judges' is a mere clerk of the judges, and that his selection by them exempts their work from everything in the way of rejection or criticism.' We happen to be of the number who believe that there is nothing to be feared from the judges, either in suppressing decisions worthy of publication, or in forcing unworthy ones upon the world. He "If there were no other reason why the judges should appoint the reporter, we should deem it sufficient that the Constitution directs it. And in this connection we may as well refer to the intimation in the Committee's report that it is the duty of the judges to send their opinions to Mr. Lansing, and that they are violating the law in sending them to any other reporter. Mr. Lansing is technically the official reporter of the Supreme Court, and nothing more. was appointed under the act of 1869 by the Governor, Secretary of State and Attorney-General. The constitutional amendment of 1870 directed the legislature to provide for the appointment of a supreme-court reporter by the judges designated to hold general term. At the convention of the judges held in December 1870, a resolution was passed requesting the Governor to invite the attention of the legislature 'to the necessity of making provision by law for the appointment of a reporter of the decisions of the supreme court, as provided by the constitution.' The Governor did invite the attention of the legislature to the matter, but that body, through the influence of those interested in Mr. Lansing and his reports, declined to act, and the same influence has to this day defeated any attempt to have the legislature obey the Constitution. Mr. Lansing is reporter only because he had succeeded in inducing the legislature to violate the explicit terms of the Constitution, and to ignore the expressed wishes of the judges. He is, therefore, as an 'official' not entitled to much consideration from the judges. "But, in order to have an official reporter, whether appointed by the judges or not, succeed in doing his work thoroughly and satisfactorily, the legislature must pursue a more liberal policy than in the act of 1869. That act gave the reporter no salary, and limited the price of his reports to $2.50 per volumea sum hardly sufficient to cover the cost of publication. The reporter must have adequate compensation for his work, besides a sufficient allowance to pay the expense of securing copies of the opinion case and points in every decision. It will not do to leave the matter of forwarding opinions to the judges. They have enough else to attend to, and are very apt to neglect it. The reporter should have a copy of every opinion prepared, and should have every means and facility necessary to insure getting it. The present reporter of the court of appeals receives a salary of $5,000, with $2,000 additional for clerk hire, besides an income of two or three thousand a year from copies of opinions. The same appropriation to a Supreme Court reporter would secure the services of a man thoroughly competent, and would enable him to secure promptly copies of all the opinions given in each department. "But if we may judge from past experience, there is little probability that the requisite legislation can be secured for the appointment of a reporter by the judges, at a fair salary, and with the requisite appropriations for collecting the opinions and other necessary material. It becomes a question then as to the feasibility of a Council of Law Reporting after the plan of that of England." In England the difficulty has been met, if not satisfactorily, yet with some measure of success, by the enterprise of the profession. It may not be impossible to suppress one series of reports for Scotland, and to obtain something like tolerable remuneration for the reporters (without which the Reports will never be satisfactory), if the various professional bodies will take united action with the countenance and support of the judges. But whether or not this is to be, we are quite unable to see why the State should refuse to undertake the duty of superintending, and, if necessary, defraying part of the expense of promulgating the law as expounded by the judges, in an authentic and accessible manner. The Law Agents Act.-Although we have always strongly advocated this measure, and desire the removal of the restrictions by which agency in the Supreme Court is still hampered, we are not among the number of those who expect the Act to produce a marked and immediate effect on the business of the Court of Session. It is probable that a gradual increase of that business will take place for some years, and that we shall see some new names of agents on the partibus of summonses and on special cases. Probably, too, the Court will be relieved of a score or two of small local cases which will in future be brought before the Sheriff-Court of Mid-Lothian. The majority of country practitioners may be expected to rest content with arranging more favourable terms for themselves with Edinburgh agents in regard to the division of fees, and on this point it is not improbable that we shall have a good deal of discussion ion and diversity of opinion and practice for some time. It is to be lamented that some agents in Edinburgh, certainly not of the first class, have already been anonymously advertising for country business "on favourable terms," but few or no country solicitors whose business is worth having will be caught by such means. It will be found judicious, we think, for the leading Edinburgh firms, or for the two Societies in Edinburgh, to come to a general understanding with the leading bodies in the country with regard to the distribution of the charges of litigation. We can hardly doubt that a more or less formal arrangement as to the proportion payable to the country employer will be arrived at in the course of the coming session, and the English practice may be found to afford a tolerably satisfactory precedent. We have heard proposals for a revision of the table of fees for Court of Session business: but, although no lawyer is overpaid in these times, a change of this kind is not practicable until the projected or portended changes in the procedure, and it may be in the constitution, of the Scotch Courts have been carried out. It is likely that the most important of the immediate practical |