He was then seventy-five years of age. The next day I formed the acquaintance of the Professor, and found his companionship so congenial, that I determined to remain some weeks. During the time, I listened to the lectures of Professor Volkmar in the University, and attended a meeting of the Historical Society, of which I had the honor of being made a member. Previous to my admission, every member was a graduate of the University of Zurich. Professor Volkmar, the President, is well known as one of the most critical scholars of Europe, and is the author of many works connected with the early history of the Christian Religion. The Society held stated meetings, at which papers were read by the President, by Pfarrer Lavater, Pfarrer Kupferschmidt and others. The lectures of the President to his class, were sufficient to mark him as a pronounced liberal. He took occasion in one of his lectures to explain to the class that there could not have been an eclipse of the sun at the time of the crucifixion, because it was at the time of the full moon. This I thought was good science but weak theology. At another time, he asked the class what was the nature of the resurrection of Christ, and when one of the students answered, "Es war eine erscheinung," the old gentleman replied, "Das ist recht." On returning from the class, 1 asked him, if the resurrection was only an appearance, how he explained the rolling away of the stone from the tomb. He replied, "There was no tomb. Jesus was put to death as a malefactor, and such were denied burial." Some of our divines would be shocked at these doctrines, but Professor Volkmar is paid by the State as a religious teacher. I asked him if the more orthodox professors did not make war upon him. He replied that they had done so in former years, but had concluded to let him alone. They went their way, and he went his. The last day I was in Zurich, we took a long walk together. I had contracted not only a friendship, but an affection for him, and felt sad at the thought of leaving him. Returning from the walk, we took a seat on a bench near that magnificent lake, admired by all travelers. I told him we should probably never meet again in this life, but I hoped nevertheless that we should meet again, and asked him if he did not believe in another state of existence. The old man turned upon me his large full eye, with a suddenness that was almost startling. "Why do you ask this?" he said. I replied, I had no object except simply to know his opinion. "Well," said he, with deliberation, "that is something I know nothing about. All the teachings of Jesus related to this life. The Kingdom of God which he was seeking to establish, was to be upon this earth. To live again, is something to be hoped, but nothing is revealed to us upon the subject. The arguments in favor of a future existence must be drawn from outside the gospels." After spending two months in Zurich and vicinity, two weeks of which were passed in the delightful scenery in the neighborhood of Lausanne, I took the cars for Paris. On the route from Zurich to Paris, I passed through German Alsace. It is very level, forming a striking contrast with the Swiss country. We passed many small villages on the way, some of them presenting quite a charming appearance. Many of the houses were very old, some of them looking as if they were about ready to fall to pieces. Some of the small churches were very handsome, the steeples presenting perfect models of Gothic architecture. The villages are compactly built, very few houses being seen in the broad tracts of country lying between them. The grape is here a prominent product. Nearly all the west sides of the hills are covered with vineyards. The country is noticeably destitute of timber. After traversing the districts of Belfour and Vessoul, we came into Chaumont, where wheat and other small grain is grown. In the afternoon we passed through a broad expanse of country, mostly under cultivation-worked by the men and women, and boys and girls living in the villages. Many people were working in the large fields, with no house in sight. These people, when they have done their day's work, go one, two, three miles, to a small and poor cottage, or hovel. By the time they have put out and taken care of their teams, it is bed time. The next day the same thing over. They are not working thei own land. They are tenants. The owners live mostly in the cities-many of them in Paris. Is this a safe basis for a republic? These people must be ignorant. There is no indication of improvement, physical or intellectual. They are not safe sovereigns. Here, in the farming tenantry, as well as in the populace of the cities, lies the danger to the French Republic. It is not more dangerous than was the slavery element in this country, and scarcely more dangerous than some elements yet existing in our large cities. We must not indulge in forebodings; but hoping for the best. let us join in the prayer of the French patriots, "Vive la Republique !" In the evening of the 30th of March, 1885, I again entered Paris. C. B. W. The "Green Bag" gives us the following: There was a very irascible old gentleman who formerly held the position of justice of the peace in one of our cities. Going down the main street one day, one of the boys spoke to him without coming up to his Honor's idea of deference. "Young man, I fine you five dollars for contempt of court." "Why, Judge," said the offender, "you are not in session." "This court," responded the judge, thoroughly irritated, "is always in session, and consequently always an object of contempt!" This could be easily matched by a story current among the Illinois bar, concerning Mr. Fridley, an old and well known lawyer of this State, and Judge Caton. It is said that Fridley, a little surprised, and a good deal irritated by a decision of Judge Caton, while holding court in Kane County, said in an undertone: "That's a d--d pretty decision!" "Mr. Fridley," said Judge Caton, who had been accustomed to the New York practice, "if you are not satisfied with the decisions of this court, you can take them to a court of errors.". "A court of errors!" cried Fridley. "My G-d! if this isn't a court of errors, I'd like to know where you'd find one." The following poem, by Eugene F. Ware, Esq., of Fort Scott, Kansas, is descriptive of the case of State v. Lewis, 19 Kan., 260, to the official report of which it is appended as a reporter's foot-note. LAW-PAW-GUILT-WILT. When upon thy frame the law STATEMENT OF CASE BY REPORTER. The defendant while at large, Was arrested on a charge Of burglarious intent, And direct to jail he went. But he somehow felt misused. And through prison walls he oozed, And affected his escape. Mark you, now: Again the law And re-socked him into jail- Then the court met, and they tried Now, you think that this strange case Ends at just about this place. Nay, not so. Again the law On defendant placed its paw This time takes him 'round the cape For affecting an escape; He, unable to give bail, Goes reluctantly to jail. Lewis, tried for this last act, "And while rightfully at large. When this plea was heard, The defendant then was pained Back to jail did Lewis go, He appeals, and now is here. The opinion will contain All the statements that remain. ARGUMENT AND BRIEF OF APPELLANT. As a matter, sir, of fact, Who was injured by our act, Can you seize us when at large Please-the-court sir, what is crime? Or the subject of a rhyme? ARGUMENT AND BRIEF OF ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE. When the State, that is to say We, take liberty away When the padlock and the hasp Leaves one helpless in our grasp, It's unlawful then that he Even dreams of liberty. Wicked dreams, that may in time Crime of dark and damning shape: Evermore remorse will roll O'er his shattered, sin-sick soul. REPLY BY APPELLANT. Please-the-court sir, if it's sin. OPINION OF THE COURT, PER CURIAM. We don't make law. We are bound To interpret it as found. The defendant broke away; When arrested, he should stay. This appeal can't be maintained For the record does not show Error in the court below, |