Open for Discussion.

AM in receipt of the interesting communication which appears below, from Wat. L. Ormsby, Supreme Court stenographer, Kings County, Brooklyn, N. Y. Mr. Ormsby needs no introduction to the readers of THE STENOGRAPHER. They remember the clean-cut suggestions and practical comments relative to the practice of the art stenographic, which have occasionally appeared above his name. Mr. Ormsby belongs to that valuable class of readers who keep an eye on this department, and believes in regulating the chap who has had the temerity to pose as its presiding genius. When the aforesaid chap and the said presiding genius stray from the straight and narrow path of practicable stenography he is brought "up short" by these hawk-eyed practitioners. And it is well. That it is so makes this magazine valuable to students and young reporters. If this department were run without regulation by, and supervision of, the men who make their living in the court room and law office, it would be a poor affair. The knowledge that the assertions made in this department must pass the cold critical eye of the expert law stenographer, and that, if doubtful or misleading, the same will not go unchallenged, necessarily makes the writer careful.

MR. ORMSBY'S LETTER.

"In THE STENOGRAPHER for January, I note, with disgust, that you arrogate to yourself the clerk's work of a criminal court, in keeping track of the challenges. These gentlemen have little to do but "hold down" a comfortable seat and swear witnesses. It is clearly a part of their work to note all challenges and to be prepared to enlighten the court and counsel on that

point. When I reflect upon the fact that in my nine years' experience in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, I have not been called upon once to determine the number of challenges in a criminal case, and that the clerk, or court, or counsel, have been able to settle it in each instance without my intervention, it seems to me I have saved myself a great amount of useless effort. In such cases, however, I report in the first person the words of Court and counsel in accepting or rejecting jurors, which, at times, seem to be ambiguous, and, if a difference arose as to the number of challenges, would probably explain any difference between counsel and the Court. The index of witnesses which you keep is another damnable innovation for keeping the stenographer busy. I have all I can do, frequently, to get the witness's name down once. If an index is necessary it may be made during the opening for the defence or summing up of an important case; but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it subserves no useful purpose, in my opinion, and in the hundredth case the Court can wait until the stenographer finds the place. Let the counsel and clerks do their own work, Brother Thorne, and let us mind our own business strictly, which is to note exact words and not insert our conclusions into the record.

"Yours truly,

WAT L. ORMSBY."

Gentlemen, there are now presented the suggestions of our worthy friend, based on long and practical experience in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The questions before you seem to be, should the law stenographer keep such memoranda of the proceedings upon the examination of

jurors, aside from his permanent record, so that he may instantly determine how many peremptory challenges have been used by the Court, and how many have been accepted? Should the law stenographer keep an index of witnesses sworn upon the trial of an action, as a means of readily finding, during the trial, portions of testimony? The affirmative of these questions was asserted by the editor of this department, in the last number. The negative is espoused by Brother Ormsby. The subject is now before you for discussion-not to demonstrate that Mr. Ormsby or the writer is correct, but which are the correct methods, and the reasons therefor. "What is the pleasure of the meeting?"

Is not this a mistake? "Dan Coughlin has been on trial again in Chicago for complicity in the celebrated Cronin murder. Many witnesses have passed away since the former Cronin trial. Their testimony remains on the record, and this will be put inby the State by placing the official stenographers on the stand and having them identify the document containing the testimony of the official record of the case."

See Art. VI, Constitution U. S., confronted with the witnesses against him." If the witnesses for the State are absent in a second trial for a criminal offense, that ends them. The defence could put them in, but not the State. Fraternally yours, FRED. IRLAND.

The paragraph is quoted from the December STENOGRAPHER, page 349. It was clipped from a Chicago paper, and in the hurry of writing my "Ubiquitous" matter, the point escaped my attention Mr. Irland is correct upon the general proposition. Article VI. of the Constitution provides : “In all criminal prosecutions the accused

shall be confronted with the witnesses against him." In some States legislatures have seen fit to permit the reading of the testimony of a witness given upon a former trial, who has since died. In the State of New York, upon the re-trial of a criminal case after the granting of a new trial, "All the testimony must be produced anew," (Code of Crim. Poc. 464.) By a recent act of our Legislature the procedure regulating the practice in civil cases was amended by this provision: 'The testimony of any witness who has died or become insane after a former trial or hearing of a contested proceeding, a special proceeding or an action, may be read upon a subsequent trial or hearing, by any party to such action or proceeding, subject to legal objections.(Chapt. 195 Laws 1893, amending 830 of Code of Civil Proc.)

The Ubiquitous Stenographer.

All that I know is, that the facts I state "Are true as truth has ever been of late."-BYRON.

CHARLES E. PICKLE, of Dallas, Texas, is stenographer in the court of civil appeals for the Third Supreme Judicial District of that State. The act organizing that court was passed April 13, 1892, and provided for the appointment of a stenographer and prescribed the salary of that officer at $1200 per annum, payable out of the State treasury. This item was included in the general appropriation bill sent to the Governor of Texas, May 9, 1893, at 9.45 a. m. At 11.30 a. m., of the same day, the Governor sent a veto message to the Legislature, in which he objected to certain items of the bill, but failed to specifically object to Mr. Pickle's salary. The Legislature then adjourned for the session without taking action upon the message. The next day the Governor approved the bill, by proper endorsement, and added, with reference to the stenographer's salary and services, thus: "For the reason that, while such clerical force may be desirable, it is not deemed necessary to the Court. And due proclamation is hereby given and directed to be made public, as required by the Constitution, showing my said objection to said item." It may be irrelevant to the issue, but it is impossible to omit the Governor's name-Hogg. Well, the highest judicial tribunal of the Lone

Star State has put Governor Hogg into "a nice Pickle," and saved Mr. Pickle's "bacon" by awarding him his salary upon the ground that, as the Governor sent to the Legislature his objections to several items of the appropriation bill, all items not objected to stood approved and the Governor could not after adjournment veto other items.

It cannot be successfully contended that the Georgia Senate is not a deliberative body. They deliberated the other day in dead earnest and fixed up and passed a bill providing for a court stenographer for each judicial district at an annual salary of $1200, and permitting these greedy hentrackers to mulch the unsuspecting litigant out of five cents for every hundred words transcribed ! It is pleasing to note that there was acrimonious discussion. That kind of debate ought to accompany five-cent deliberation. Well, these law-makers after "sleeping" on the bill, became conscience stricken and at the session next day deliberated with purpose, with the result that the action of the previous day was reconsidered, and it is now probable that the ten-cent rate will obtain. It is really refreshing to note that some of our legislators are beginning to evince rudimentary knowledge of the value of stenographic services in getting out transcript.

In the instance referred to, it is reported that among the reason which brought about reconsideration was a desire to do justice to the stenographers of the big circuits, who could not, under the bill as passed, secure sufficient compensation for their work. Another reason for reconsideration was that several of the members who had voted for the bill on its passage thought that the amount allowed stenographers for transcribing, five cents per one hundred words, was too small. It would be doing but justice if New York's Legislature, and that of other States would indulge in deliberation of the same character.

THE righteous indignation which a member of the craft, signing himself "Stenographer," in the following communication to the Baltimore Herald, expresses, will touch a responsive chord in every sensible stenographer who reads it :

To the Editor of The Morning Herald:

I notice a newspaper advertisement calling for a competent" stenographer and offering as an inducement the magnificent salary of $6 a week. We see frequently in the papers the protests of mechanics, carpenters and other tradesmen when their wages are cut, and these complaints justly meet with consideration, but no one ever considers the case of the unfortunate clerk or stenographer, of whom there are many in Baltimore to-day working for a pittance which merely enables them to exist. The advertiser who offers $6 per week for a competent stenographer either does not know what a competent stenographer is and the amount of time and money it takes to make one, or else he is trying to make money out of the misfortune of some stenographer who is out of work and must either take $6 or starve. If the munificent advertiser wants a cheap stenographer, for Heaven's sake let him leave the word competent out.

STENOGRAPHER.

I desire to say at this time, that I regard it a duty which a competent stenographer owes to himself and his profession, to raise his voice and swing his pen against the ignorance and abuse at which "Stenographer " has aimed in his communication. If this meets the eye of that gentleman, let me say that, on behalf of the profession, THE STENOGRAPHER thanks him for the expression of his sentiments, and will be happy to make his acquaintance and to welcome him as a co-worker in the cause of educating the public to the knowledge of the meaning of competent stenographer."

"

WILLIAM R. LANSING, of Rochester, N. Y., was appointed, in 1886, by the county judge of that county (Monroe) to report the proceedings of the grand jury of that county, at a compensation to be fixed by the Board of Supervisors. It seems that last year GrandJury-Stenographer Lansing was paid in fees, $2,010.45 for grand jury work, besides $487 for extra work, and the genial hentracker is yet a creditor of the county. Well, it seems these facts came to light through an investigating committee of the Monroe County Supervisors, and it is now proposed to pay a stenographer from $1500 to $2000 to do the work and to give the District Attorney an office stenographer at $50 a month, and procure an amendment of the law permitting either of these stenographers to report the grand jury proceedings. Mr. Lansing denies that he has had a snap," claiming that the secrecy legally attached to the proceedings before the grand jury often necessitated sixteen hours per day hard work in getting out the matter. Brother Lansing is an expert law stenographer of wide experience, and knows whereof he speaks. He is an old friend of THE STENOGRAPHER, and is among those who contributed valuable

replies to questions propounded by the writer in the last July STENOGRAPHER, upon page 1. The District Attorney has been directed to draft a proposed bill for introduction into the Legislature, covering the case, and in the meantime the employment by the District attorney of a stenographer at fifty dollars per month has been authorized.

THE irrepressible W. Kay Tewksberry, a Rochester stenographer, who has been before the public of the Flour City somewhat conspicuously, of late, in connection with the subject of the application and construction of the civil service rules, is out with a protesting letter, which was served upon the Rochester common council, wherein he scores four points of illegality in the recent appointment of stenographer Miss Mabel K. Gray, of No. 8 Scio Street, that city, to the municipal department. His letter closes with these significant words: "Unless the law is now complied with by the city attorney, an injunction will be in order. However, the present letter to your board, I believe, will be all that is necessary to get compliance with the law, in letter and spirit."

THE STENOGRAPHER admires the fighting qualities, exhibited by W. Kay T., and would be pleased to hear from him on "What I Know About Civil Service Rules."

LITTLE, if anything, has been written in magazines upon the subject of reporting the proceedings of grand juries. When preparing Practical Court Reporting, I deemed the subject of sufficient importance to treat it. That class of law reporting often comes to the young stenographer as the first important work. He should be ready to do it. Mr. Wm. R. Lansing's experience ought to enable him to throw much light on the topic. Brother Lansing, can't you say a word or two?

THE numerous friends of court stenographer F. H. Burt were shocked to learn of the death of his wife. She was a lady of varied accomplishments, and possessed, in a marked degree, that sunny nature and winning disposition which makes and holds friends. THE STENOGRAPHER extends Brother Burt its sincere sympathy, in his great loss.

THIS appears to be the season of official house-cleaning. Lowering, raising and wiping out salaries; creating and extinguishing positions; discharges and resignations, and various other spicy and interesting antics are being played by the goddess who pre

sides over stenographerdom. And it came to pass that the remarkable stenographic practitioner John Hooker, who resembles the poet Longfellow, in appearance, and who for the short period of thirty-six years has made hen-tracks in the Supreme Court of Errors, at Hartford, Conn., resigned that position on October last, which took effect January 1st of the present year. James P. Andrews, an expert stenographer of that city, has been chosen as his successor. Thirty-six years is just about the period of service of friend William Anderson, of Brooklyn, who with Mr. Peter P. McLoughlin, runs the stenographic machinery of the New York Court of General Sessions. And just as Mr. Hooker throws off the harness, I find that enterprising stenographic amanuensis, Ben Wright, of Rome, Ga., stepping into the arena of law reporting. good record as an amenuensis. day he reported his first law-suit and did it so well, as his carefully prepared transcript showed, that he was very highly complimented by the lawyers in the case. Good luck to you, Ben, for 1894.

Ben has a The other

THE South Carolina General Assembly has leveled all salaries of court stenographers, putting them on a thousand-dollar basis, without a dissenting voice.

The

Just over the line, in sunny Georgia, the police commissioners of Atlanta, are trying to create a $900 position for some good, wide-awake quill driver. While all this has been transpiring, Detroit's board of public works discharged its stenographer. latter claims thirty dollars back salary, upon the ground that his salary had been illegally reduced from $1200 to $1100 per year. This is what the board says about the stenographer: "With the exception of secretary and chief clerk, all the other clerks under the board hold during the pleasure of the board only. On November 6, Albert Glickley was discharged for incompetency and continued neglect of duty." The disagreement as to indebtedness to the stenographer seems to arise out of an exceedingly hazy condition of the information and records concerning the adoption and passage of a certain resolution. But, then, the plucky shorthander will undoubtedly succeed in the establishment of his claim. Have you noted how singularly successful the stenographer is in litigation? H. W. THORNE,