tually served; and so that a contract to pay the plaintiff $10,000 a year salary, payably monthly, no time being specified, was a hiring at will, and could be terminated by the defendant at any time; that the fact that the compensation was measured at so much a year did not make the hiring for a year, and the plaintiff being discharged before the end of the year could only recover for the time actually served. The court said:

"The learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that a general hiring means, as matter of law, an employment from year to year, and insists that his proposition is sustained by the decision of this court in Adams v. Fitzpatrick, 125 N. Y. 124.

"The case cited does not decide the point in question, although certain expressions in the opinion and reference to English cases might

seem, upon a casual reading, to justify a contrary contention.

"The referee found, however, that the parties originally contemplated a hiring for a year, and this court held that on the continuation of the employment after the expiration of the year, without further agreement, it would be presumed that the parties had assented to renew the contract for a like period.

*

*

*

"The present condition of the law as to the legal effect of a general hiring is thus stated by Mr. Wood in his work on Master and Servant, second edition, section 136, as follows: 'In England it is held that a general hiring, or a hiring by the terms of which no time is fixed, is a hiring by the year. With us the rule is inflexible that a general or indefinite hiring is prima facie a hiring at will; and if the servant seeks to make it out a yearly hiring, the burden is upon him to establish it by proof. A hiring at so much a day, week, month or year, no time being specified is an indefinite hiring, and no presumption attaches that it was for a day even, but only at the rate fixed for whatever time the party may serve. A contract to pay one $2,500 a year for services is not a contract for a year, but a contract to pay at the rate of $2,500 a year for services actually rendered, and is determinable at will by either party. Thus it will be seen that the fact that the compensation is measured at so much a day, month or year, does not necessarily make such a hiring a hiring for a day, month or year,

* **

but that in all such cases the contract may be put an end to by either party at any time, unless the time is fixed, and a recovery had, at the rate fixed for the services actually rendered.' The decisions on this point in the lower courts have not been uniform, but we think the rule is correctly stated by Mr. Wood, and it has been adopted in a number of States. Evans v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 24 Mo. App. 114; Finger v. Brewing Co., 13 id. 310; De Briar v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 450; Haney v. Caldwell, 35 Ark. 136, 168; Prentiss v. Ledyard, 28 Wis. 131."

Perhaps nothing could be more entertaining as well as instructive than the comments in the

Times (London) on the speech of Mr. Chamberlain, colonial secretary, who is considered fore the English people. one of the cleverest and brightest men now beIt is particularly

pleasing to note his words of kindly feeling ration and common sense which prompted him towards the United States and to see the modeto speak in such a way in regard to the Veneain in the other diplomatic matters which have zuela question and of the policy of Great Britbeen recently engaging her attention. Most interesting, perhaps, to lawyers is the speech and comments thereon, a matter of charming

study, because the lawyer appreciates most clearly the qualities which are apparent in the

words which are uttered. The article we refer to is as follows:

"By way of recreation after the unremitting labor of late entailed upon him at the colonial office, Mr. Chamberlain on Saturday reviewed our position abroad and in the colonies in a brief but weighty address delivered in Birmingham. It is just such a speech as the English people love at all times to read - clear, resolute, good humored, and buoyant with confidence in the nation and in its traditional policy. At the present moment it is doubly welcome. It tells us nothing that is new, either as to the facts of the situation or as to the way in which ministers propose to deal with them. That, of course, is one of the ordinary conditions under which ministerial utterances on such topics are possible from public platforms. Still it is suggestive of very much. It will tend to confirm the general feeling of hopefulness with which the British people regard the situation, not

withstanding the shadows that still linger in some quarters of the sky. After expressing the just satisfaction felt by the country at the creditable and workmanlike manner in which the recent operations in Ashanti were carried out, and paying a hearty tribute to the services of Sir Francis Scott and to 'the discretion and statesmanship' displayed by Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Chamberlain went on to disclaim any special merit in the ministry who directed the expedition. They have carried out, he declared, the intentions of their predecessors. It is in the continuity of our foreign and colonial policy, revealed by such incidents as these, that the secretary for the colonies, like all true statesmen, sees the sure foundation of our Imperial power. The principle is invaluable at all times. When the atmosphere of foreign politics is untroubled, it secures the steady and progressive development of our colonies and dependencies. In the day of stress and danger it compels all the world to see that the ministers of the Queen are also the executives of the British people, who speak with their voice, and can at need command their resources

and their armed strength. The difficulties

and the dangers which from time to time we are called upon to confront, and of which our late troubles are an example, are rarely the fault of individual ministers or governments. They are, as Mr. Chamberlain well said, the 'necessary incidents' of empire. They are the results of our policy pursued through a long course of years, a policy to which we are irrevocably committed and from which we cannot now go back, even if we would, without the downfall of our greatness, and, perhaps, without the ruin of our State. It has so happened that a good many of those difficulties seem to have come to a head all at once. Had ministers been to blame the country would have blamed them. But the country has done nothing of the sort. It has seen, as Mr. Chamberlain sees, that these difficulties are necessary incidents' of the system it has sanctioned and by which it is resolved to stand. It recognizes in them the results of Great Britain's traditional policy, and it is satisfied that they will be dealt with, as Mr. Chamberlain declares they will be dealt with, according to the traditional lines of that policy.' The immediate

effect of the outbursts to which we have been suddenly exposed has been to draw the whole nation closer together, to determine them to increase their preparations for defense, and to bring to them once more abundant proofs of the affection and the loyalty of their children beyond the seas. That is the chief result. At the same time, as Mr. Chamberlain observed, a convention with France has been signed of a very conciliatory kind. Good relations with our nearest neighbors are, no doubt, an object which we always wish to secure. In this instance, however, it seems uncertain whether we have not been a little too generous in our desire to attain it.

Upon the unhappy controversy which has arisen between us and the United States the secretary for the colonies spoke with feeling and good sense. The family ties by which Mr. Chamberlain, like many more Englishmen, is connected with that country are well known. He has visited America; he has many friends amongst her leading citizens; he is acquainted with the President himself, to whose high character for straight forwardness and honorable dealing he cheerfully bore witness. Looking back upon the past few weeks, he says, "Fortunately we have both had time for reflection,'

for reflection has brought with it more knowledge and understanding of the grounds of the dispute. It is doubtless true, as Mr. Chamberlain stated, that, at first, people in this country felt themselves reluctantly driven to the conclusion that the American government wished to force a quarrel upon them. They knew that they were quite innocent of any just grounds of offense, and the very consciousness of their innocence rendered it difficult for them to comprehend how the charges urged against them could be urged in good faith. They knew that they had not the remotest intention of impugning the Monroe doctrine a doctrine which, as Mr. Chamberlain remarked, was actually based on a suggestion made by Mr. Canning and they knew that they had treated Venezuela with long suffering and generosity. Time is a healing god,' and time is enabling us to appreciate better each other's positions. It has become clear to us that all that is best in the United States' recoils with horror from the notion of a fratricidal war. There are, indeed, politicians who act as though they were not

averse to such a calamity, but the telegrams of our New York correspondent daily tend to make it more certain that, except perhaps in the West, the advocates of so wicked a policy have but little solid support. One incident which undoubtedly created a bad impression in this country is satisfactorily explained by our correspondent to-day. It seems that the nomination of Mr. Coudert to a seat on the Venezuela commission was made in ignorance of the speech which he had delivered prejudging -as it seemed to Englismen-the case he was to investigate. The American government and the American people, on the other hand, have had ample proof from the speeches of responsible ministers, like Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain, and from the tone of the press of all parties and complexions, that our sole purpose is to assert our just rights to what we lawfully possess. That proof, there are the best of reasons to believe, has not been tendered in vain. Blood, after all, is thicker than water, as Senator Wolcott proclaimed, and there can be no sort of doubt that on this side of the ocean "the kindly and friendly purpose" now entertained, as our correspondent affirms, by the president, will be more than reciprocated. The attitude at this moment of the two peoples toward the Armenian question demonstrates in a striking way how close is the affinity between them, and how wide the difference which separates them from all other powers. It is not, indeed, to be expected that America will so far depart from the sagacious principles of Washington's farewell message as to draw her sword on behalf of the victims of Turkish misrule. But the American people are the only people except ourselves not, perhaps, wholly incapable of making war on behalf of the oppressed without regard to national interests. The idea that America favors Russia's intervention is dismissed by our correspondent with contempt. Russia not improbably has established good relations with Turkey on the understanding that she will be no party to other than platonic remonstrances over the grievances of Turkey's subjects. That, as has been rumored, she has done more seems extremely unlikely. The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi did not work out very satisfactorily. The conclusion of a similar treaty now would lead all Mussulmans to look with suspicion on the ruler who had

placed himself in the hands of the Giaour, while it might tend to bring about relations between the other powers by no means favorable to the designs of Russia.

Not the least interesting part of Mr. Chamberlain's speech was that in which he touched on the condition of South Africa. He was bound, of course, to speak with all reserve, and to pass over certain topics in which the public feels a deep and natural concern. To the chief permanent factors in the situation he felt, however, at liberty to refer. He tell us, in the first place, that the lamentable events which have taken place have not interrupted the progress of the English and Dutch races in South Africa towards good relations with each other a statement confirmed by Mr. Schreiner's remarkable letter to a Pretoria newspaper. That, as Mr. Chamberlain rightly insists, is the key to the future welfare of those regions. Mutual confidence and good will between the two peoples are the essential condition of peace and progress, and it is gratifying to learn that they have not been shaken even by the rude blows of the last few weeks. But peace and good will are not to be maintained except under reasonable conditions. In the Transvaal Mr. Chamberlain frankly admits that the Uitlanders have just cause for discontent - how just may be seen from the description of their state which appears in our article on 'The Colonies,' this morning. Until the just grievances of these men are removed there can be no permanent guarantee against internal disturbances in the Republic. It stands to reason that the majority of the population, who have a legal right under the London convention to enter and settle in the Transvaal, and who pay nine-tenths of the taxation, cannot be expected to acquiesce in a constitution which confers upon them no share in the government of the land. The problem before President Kruger is how to grant them their equitable demands without destroying the independence of the State. The problem, in the view of the secretary for the Colonies, is not insoluble, and it is one in which, as he significantly observes, England, as the paramount power in South Africa,' has the deepest possible interest."

A bill has been introduced in the Legislature to amend section 212 of the Code of Civil Pro