y of the Land Commissioners.

The Land Commission has been in many senses unfortunate. The original
German member, a gentleman of the name of Eggert, fell early into
precarious health; his work was from the first interrupted, he was at
last (to the regret of all that knew him) invalided home; and his
successor had but just arrived. In like manner, the first American
commissioner, Henry C. Ide, a man of character and intelligence, was
recalled (I believe by private affairs) when he was but just settling
into the spirit of the work; and though his place was promptly filled by
ex-Governor Ormsbee, a worthy successor, distinguished by strong and
vivacious common sense, the break was again sensible. The English
commissioner, my friend Bazett Michael Haggard, is thus the only one who
has continued at his post since the beginning. And yet, in spite of
these unusual changes, the Commission has a record perhaps unrivalled
among international commissions. It has been unanimous practically from
the first until the last; and out of some four hundred cases disposed of,
there is but one on which the members were divided. It was the more
unfortunate they should have early fallen in a difficulty with the chief
justice. The original ground of this is supposed to be a difference of
opinion as to the import of the Berlin Act, on which, as a layman, it
would be unbecoming if I were to offer an opinion. But it must always
seem as if the chief justice had suffered himself to be irritated beyond
the bounds of discretion. It must always seem as if his original attempt
to deprive the commissioners of the services of a secretary and the use
of a safe were even senseless; and his step in printing and posting a
proclamation denying their jurisdiction were equally impolitic and
undignified. The dispute had a secondary result worse than itself. The
gentleman appointed to be Natives' Advocate shared the chief justice's
opinion, was his close intimate, advised with him almost daily, and
drifted at last into an attitude of opposition to his colleagues. He
suffered himself besides (being a layman in law) to embrace the interest
of his clients with something of the warmth of a partisan. Disagreeable
scenes occurred in court; the advocate was more than once reproved, he
was warned that his consultations with the judge of appeal tended to
damage his own character and to lower the credit of the appellate court.
Having lost some cases on which he