It is in procedure that our legislation is least efficient.  Having little knowledge of the subject, legislatures have been shy of meddling with court rules and processes; while the very fact that the legislatures have taken unto themselves the right so to interfere, has seemed to impress both bench and bar with a certain sense of irresponsibility.  I fear we must admit that the judges of England, aided by its bar, have been far more solicitous of speedy and simple procedure and trial than have the courts of this country.  Some Western States have crudely tried to meet the difficulty, as by providing that all judges must render an opinion within sixty days, or other brief period, after a case is argued before them, or even by limiting the number of witnesses to be called!  But it may be feared that so long as public sentiment rather demands every possibility of evasion of execution than that a guilty person should be promptly and summarily punished, little can be hoped for from the legislatures.  Such progress as has been made in this direction has universally been under the urgent instance of the lawyers themselves, acting through the State or Federal bar associations.  But the judges themselves must venture a stricter control of irrelevant testimony.

XV

OTHER LEGISLATION AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Legislation concerning freedom of speech and its limitations, the law of slander and libel, hardly exists in America, except only the efforts of newspapers to be free of the consequences of libels published by them, provided they publish a retractation; and the efforts of the people to protect their reputation and right to privacy, as by laws like that of the State of Pennsylvania prohibiting ridiculous or defamatory cartoons, even of persons in public life; and the legislation already attempted in some States to prohibit the use of a person’s likeness for advertising purposes, or to protect them from the kodak fiend, or even to establish a general right to privacy as to their doings, engagements, social entertainments, etc., when they are of no legitimate interest to the public.  Legislation in these directions has, however, only made a beginning.

The newspaper-libel laws usually provide that the retractation shall be a defence to a libel suit, at least if published in as large a type and in as conspicuous a manner as the original article complained of; sometimes they only provide that in such cases the newspaper shall be relieved of all but actual damages.  The wisdom of such legislation is questionable, as the old adage runs:  “A lie will travel around the world while the truth is putting on its boots”; moreover, it is questionable whether they are not class legislation in extending to a certain form of business or a certain trade a protection which is not extended to others.  There has been much legislation preventing the advertising of patent medicines, immoral