aged man was his servant, who with the aid of three soldiers had borne him off the field of battle mortally wounded; that the officer died under that elm tree, and that this faithful servant buried him in his uniform and with the aforesaid accompaniments, wrapping the body in several blankets, covering it with boards and marking the grave from the standpoint of the tree. All this was done in the hope of ultimately removing the remains to England.

After the peace, the servant began to importune the family to search for the bones of his dear master; but they had no confidence in his ability to find them, and the matter lay along, he still entreating, till the grandsons of the officer-the young gentlemen present-decided to gratify the faithful old man with an attempt at recovery. The result is already detailed. But the remains could not have been those of Frazer, whose ashes undoubtedly still rest in the redoubt, where they were laid in the gloaming of October 8, 1777, under the fire of the American artillery and the dust upthrown by cannon balls over the chaplain and attendant mourners. The burial scene as described in the Baroness Reidesel's journal-forms one of the most graphic pictures in history. Why have not some of our American artists caught the inspiration of that narrative and endeavored to portray it on canvas?

TRUTH IN LEGAL INVESTIGATION

THE TRUE GENESIS OF THE GREAT REFORM

The origin of that change in the law by which the testimony of parties. interested in a law-suit is admitted, is brought out with much force, in the recent correspondence between the two well-known American jurists, Honorable Charles Johnston McCurdy and Honorable David Dudley Field. It is information that will interest every reader, whether citizen or lawyer. There have been edited recently, in England, by Thomas H. Ward, M.A., two volumes of very able articles, furnished by various writers on the advancements and improvements during the reign of Queen Victoria* One of the articles was written by Lord Justice Bowen on the administration of the law. After describing the inconsistencies, absurdities, and perversions of justice heretofore incident to the practice of the common law, he goes on to say:

"Perhaps the most serious blemish of all consisted in the established law of evidence, which excluded from giving testimony all witnesses who had even the minutest interest in the result, and, as a crowning paradox, even the parties to the suit themselves. The evidence of interested witnesses,' it was said, 'can never induce any rational belief.' The merchant whose name was forged to a bill of exchange had to sit by, silent and unheard, while his acquaintances were called to offer conjectures and beliefs as to the authenticity of the disputed signature from what they knew of his other writings. If a farmer in his gig ran over a foot passenger in the road, the two persons whom the law singled out to prohibit from becoming witnesses were the farmer and the foot passenger. In spite of the vigorous efforts of Lord Denman and others, to which the country owes so much, this final absurdity, which closed in court the mouths of those who knew most about the matter, was not removed till the year 1851.”

The true history of this confessedly great improvement, credited to Lord Denman and the English Bar, appears as follows:

*The Reign of Queen Victoria. A Survey of Fifty Years of Progress.....In two Volumes. London, 1887.

HON. DAVID D. FIELD,

"LYME, CONN., SEPT. 31, 1887.

Dear Sir:--An elaborate work has lately been published, describing in articles by eminent men the wonderful progress of improvements in Great Britain during the reign of Queen Victoria. One article by Lord Justice Bowen relates to the administration of justice.... After enumerating many of the wrongs and absurdities of the old system, he says: Perhaps the most serious blemish of all consisted in the established law of evidence, which excluded from giving testimony all witnesses who had even the minutest interest in the result, and, as a crowning paradox, even the parties to the suit themselves.' The evidence of interested witnesses,' it was said, 'can never induce any rational belief.'. . . . . This absurdity was removed in the year 1851, at the instance of Lord Denman, and the act of Parliament allowing parties to testify has always been called by his name. The history of the change in our country is of course familiar to you, as you had much to do with it; but I think you will pardon me for directing your attention to it at this time.... . In the year 1847, when I was holding the office of lieutenant governor and president of the senate of Connecticut, I drafted and introduced into the legislature a bill for a law enabling parties, as well as other persons interested in the event of the suit, to tes tify in their own cases; but it was violently opposed by the judges and older lawyers, and was rejected. The next year (1848), holding the same position, I renewed the attempt with success. The law went into immediate operation, and won the full approval of the Bar and the public. Soon afterwards (perhaps in 1849) you wrote to me asking the result. This I gave to you, and at the same time stated at some length the prominent arguments in favor of the law. My letter and your own views were pub lished in your proposed Code, reported to the legislature of New York the 31st of December, 1849. In this way the change became generally known and was soon adopted throughout the Union.

When I went to London in January 1851 I took at your suggestion a letter from you to a committee on law reform there, and explained to them the change here, the reasons for it, and the results, in which they seemed to be much interested. At their instance I called on Lord Brougham for a similar purpose. Being at the time especially engaged, he requested me to call again. This I intended to do, but having made my arrangements to leave for Vienna, I did not keep the appointment. You were so kind as to send me a copy of your proposed Code, but I do not now find it. I shall be greatly obliged if you will lend me another, to be immediately returned. Will you please also advise whether it is not just and proper to

put on record the true genesis of that great improvement in one of the most important of all human transactions-the administration of justice? With great respect your friend,

CHAS. J. MCCURDY."

My Dear Sir:

"NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 1887.

It was pleasant to receive on my return from abroad a letter from my old friend and co-worker. Extreme pressure of business has prevented my answering sooner. Most certainly it is desirable that everything connected with so desirable a reform as the opening of the doors to truth in legal investigations should be known. I have no hesitation in advising you to put on record the true genesis of the great improvement,' in which we led the way. Give the circumstances and the details, and refer to documents, particularly published documents, so far as practicable. I know that the English got the idea from you. It is your right, and, I may add, your duty. Ever faithfully yours, &c., &c.,

HON. CHARLES J. MCCURDY.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

P. S.-I cannot now lay my hand on the pamphlet to which you refer, but when I can do so you shall have it."

HON. DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,

"LYME, CONN., Nov. 1887.

My Dear Sir :-I return by mail the book which you were so good as to send me, and thank you for the use of it. I will soon prepare and submit to you a brief statement of the facts, chiefly taken from our letters.

Of course we do not pretend to have originated the idea that parties should be allowed to testify. This had been suggested by Livingston, Bentham, and others. But we may well claim that it was in our own country and largely by our efforts that the great right was first guaranteed to them by statute; that it was under such influences that the crust of inveterate prejudices was first effectually broken through, the accumulated unwisdom of a thousand years was set aside, and a reform was established which in some sense revolutionized the administration of justice, and is destined to continue forever.

Very truly your friend,

CHAS. J. MCCURDY."

The following is an extract from the report of Messrs. Field and Associate Commissioners to the Legislature of New York, Dec. 31st, 1849, accompanying their proposed Code:

"In this completed Code, we are for abolishing the remaining portion of the rule of exclusion, and for declaring parties competent as well as others. This has already been done in Connecticut, by a section of the Revised Statutes of 1849, as follows:

'No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.' (Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849, page 86, Sec. 141. In the margin of the page the time of the passage of the law is given as 1848.)

One of the Commissioners has taken occasion to inquire into the operation of this law, and has received the following answer on the subject from the Lieutenant Governor of that State, which we think will serve to remove any apprehension respecting the result of a similar law here:

Dear Sir:

"LYME, CONN., Dec. 10th, 1849.

I have delayed answering your inquiry, respecting the operation of our law allowing parties in civil causes to testify, partly in consequence of other engagements, but principally for the purpose of enabling me to speak with some confidence on the subject. As the statute is recent, and excepts from its provisions suits pending at its passage, the experiment has not been fully tested. So far, however, as it has been tried, I may safely say, after conversing with eminent gentlemen of the Bar, in different parts of the State, and from my own observation, professional and judicial, that the result is highly satisfactory. So important a change in the rules of evidence met of course, at the outset, a very earnest opposition; especially (with some distinguished exceptions) from the senior members of the profession. Their fears, I believe, are in a great measure quieted, and I am not aware of any intention or desire to attempt a return to the old system. Many innovations on the principles of the common law, relating to the admissibility of interested witnesses, had formerly been made in Connecticut. The most common action with us is book debt, and in this the parties and others having an interest in the event of the suit had always been allowed to testify. The action of account at law is still in constant use here, in which the same rule exists. In other cases special statutes had obviated the difficulties arising from the restrictions of the common law,