himself to that unfortunate race with the greatest kindness, charity, and sympathy. The compromise measures of Congress and the judgment of the Supreme Court failed to settle these differences. It was idle to argue that in the earliest English days there were slaves who had no rights; if a stranger slew one his lord recovered the damage; if his master killed him he was but a chattel the less, and that his descendants were slaves as well: "mine," said the early English proverb, "is the calf that is born of my cow;" that when Richard II. had promised to the rising, headed by Watt Tyler, they should be free, Parliament declared the king's graut "was null and void;" that "their serfs were their goods," and that the "king could not take their goods but by their consent;" that in the time of Charles II. all the judges united in declaring negroes to be merchandise, liable to forfeiture like other goods; that years after our independence they were treated, in British statutes, as articles of merchandise alongside of rum and iron; and that slavery existed in, and was recognized by the laws of every state when the constitution was formed; and that there could be no higher law between parties than the terms of their agreement. To this it was answered-that where existing conditions could not be foreseen, general agreements could not prevail against natural right; nor was it possible to believe that when the fathers said all men were free and equal, they meant only white men; but that if they did, they had no power to bind their descendants forever to a doctrine so unjust. THE END OF SLAVERY. Accordingly, at the next presidential election the people declared against the Supreme Court construction, and elected a Congress and executive bound to overthrow it. The result was that the South then undertook to go out of a union in which their rights were, as they thought, refused, and this brought on the war. The effort to extend slavery destroyed it. "He that carries eggs," says the Chinese proverb, "must avoid controversies." The presence of armies necessarily set the slave himself free. Whatever else may happen in other conditions, and with other races, African slavery can never be restored. Just as gunpowder destroyed the feudal system, the physical changes in the country, the means of instant communication and rapid inter-transport, the trade and mechanical occupations of our day, are inconsistent with the existence of such an agricultural serfdom. Those who fear and those who hope-if there be suchfor a restoration of negro slavery alike fear or hope in vain. Already there is a great gulf between it and us. Indeed, it is difficult for us even now, and it will be impossible for our children to realize how intense and bitter was the strife over slavery. TANEY'S DEATH. Near the very close of the war, in the eighty-eighth year of his age, Mr. Taney died. No one can read his reported opinions; the announcement of the Supreme Court on the occasion. of his death; the eulogiums of the great counsel who practised before him; the declarations of his associates, and, above all, of that great judge who had differed with him most-Mr. Justice Curtis-and the speeches* at the subsequent Bar Meeting, in Washington to establish a Taney fund, without being convinced that he was at once a pure, wise, and great man and jurist. He was indeed a man of iron will, of undaunted courage, of absolute purity, of ripest learning, of largest powers, kindest charity, and loftiest patriotism. In the highest and best sense a Christian, a lawyer, and a gentleman. In the words of a quaint writer of the seventeenth century, it might be said of Taney-that while he lived he was the delight of the courts, the ornament of the bar, the glory of his profession, the terror of deceit, the oracle of his countrymen. And when death *By Mr. Evarts, Mr. Garfield, Senator Carpenter, Senator Edmunds, and others. shall call such an one as he to the Bar of Heaven by a habeas corpus cum causis, he will find the Judge his advocate, nonsuit the Evil One, obtain a liberate from all his infirmities, and continue still one of the long robe in glory. OUR PROFESSION. If I have dwelt upon the career of this great judge when I had so little new to tell, it is because ours is a profession whose labors and talents are expended for the most part upon the controversies of individuals and about transitory affairs. And yet it is of all professions the one most important to good government and to just living. In our favored land, with its great natural advantages and its freedom from arbitrary government, where individual rights are protected even against the government itself by fundamental laws, the administration of the law is that exercise of government which is at once the most frequent and most important. To it we must look for relief from injustice, for the preservation of personal rights, and for the protection of property. We may differ about political questions, about the nature of government, about public policy; but for ourselves and our daily lives, what we most need, what is of the highest inportance to each one of us, is a pure, just, wise, and fearless administration of the law. We cannot, then, too highly honor those who, by long life and great gifts and opportunities, have been permitted to adorn the administration of the law and our profession. We owe it to our high calling, to the cause of good government and of right living, to see justice done to their services, to cherish their names, and to keep their memories green. PAPER READ BY THOMAS M. COOLEY. The Recording Laws of the United States. Of the securities provided by law for the protection of property, perhaps none is more important than the registration of land titles. We put aside, very early, the old English notion that the best evidence of title was the possession of the title deeds, and adopted a system which, in theory, proposed to place in a public office, accessible to every one, a record of the titles to real estate, by which every man might safely buy or safely accept encumbrances. Speaking generally now of the system, the theory seems to be nearly perfect. Every instrument affecting the title to lands must be executed in the presence of a public officer, who is empowered by law to authenticate the act, and it is only on his certificate, given after the observance of all due formalities, that the instrument can go upon record. The record is made up by another public officer, who is permitted to record nothing which is defective, and who shall carefully note the day, hour, and minute when any instrument is presented for record. To insure the prompt recording, the grantee or encumbrancee is notified that his unrecorded instrument shall be invalid as against any subsequent deed or encumbrance which a bona fide taker may receive from the same party, and place first upon record; and as this penalty seems to render it reasonably sure that there will be no needless delay, it is supposed the record will show the actual condition of the title, except in cases of gross neglect. Those cases the law declines to provide for; assuming that it is better that parties failing to record their titles shall run all risks of loss, than that the public record shall be an unsafe reliance. We therefore find this record generally trusted, as if it were something almost infallible; and titles are bought and mortgages taken in reliance upon the mere certificate of the recorder that the grantor or mortgagor is owner. It is nevertheless well understood that it is impossible such records should be an entirely safe reliance, because many things that may affect a title either cannot be shown by them under any circumstances, or cannot be shown under any provisions of law as yet made for the purpose. Heirship is one of these. If the apparent owner of the record title dies, whoever purchases of his supposed heirs must run all risks of error or misinformation in learning who they are. Provision has indeed been made in a few of the states for recording a certificate of the heirship from the court having jurisdiction of the estate of decedents, but these provisions are exceptional, and the certificate would of course be ineffectual to cut off the right of an actual heir, unless given under provisions of law which require a judicial hearing and determination, after notice to all concerned. Questions of marital right in lands are also not to be settled by a mere inspection of a record; and not to mention other things which might defeat an apparently good title, it is sufficient for our present purpose to say that any deed in the chain of title may prove to be incorrectly recorded* or be forged, or be given *The question upon whom the law shall fall if one is misled by relying upon a record which is incorrectly made, is one on which there are varying decisions; the different conclusions being reached on differences in the recording law. That a deed duly executed and left for record by the grantee is constructive notice to subsequent purchasers, encumbrancers, and creditors, notwithstanding errors in recording it, see Merrick vs. Wallace, 19 Ill. 486; Polk vs. Cosgrove, 4 Biss. 437; Riggs vs. Boylan, 4 Biss. 445; Mims vs. Mims, 35 Ala. 23. That the record is notice, though not indexed, see Bishop vs. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; Garrard vs. Davis, 53 Mo. 322; Curtis vs. Lyman, 24 Vt. 338. But the following cases hold that if errors occur in recording, the record is notice |