and any verbal testimony of admissions of guilt should be cautiously considered by you; but, after such cautious consideration, if you believe the truth of such testimony, you are at liberty to act upon it, and consider it in connection with all the other evidence in the case.' By this instruction the jury were told they were at liberty to consider an unconscious statement of the defendant. As we have said, it is only the voluntary statements of the accused that can be used against him. If the defendant was asleep when he spoke, he was not conscious, and the statement was not voluntary. Where there is no doubt about the matter, and the evidence shows the accused was asleep when he spoke, the statement should be excluded by the court. Where there is a question as to whether the accused was conscious or unconscious when he spoke, it should be left to the jury under proper instruction." The American Law Review calls attention to a case contra, State v. Morgan, 35 W. Va., 260.

Copy of Certificate of Admission of James
Buchanan to the Bar of Lancaster
County.

Pennsylvania
Lancaster County SS

I, John Passmore, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas for said County, Certify, that James Buchanan, Esquire, was on examination by Charles Smith, William Montgomery and William Jenkins, Esquires, reported this day, to be well (SEAL) qualified to practice as an Attorney at Law, and was admitted and sworn as such in said Court accordingly. In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Lancaster, this seventeenth day of November, A. Dom. one thousand eight hundred and twelve.

(Signed)

JOHN PASSMORE, Prothonotary.

O. C. ADJUDICATIONS.
By JUDGE SMITH:

Thursday, February 11, 1915.
Peter P. Hill, Penn.
Monday, February 15, 1915.
Elizabeth Heisley, Columbia.
L. E. Royer, Ephrata Boro.
Jacob Metzger, City.
Susanna Werntz, Earl.
Jacob E. Ebersole, Conoy.
Anna M. Wambaugh, Columbia.
Mary E. Wolf, Columbia.
Elizabeth B. Baker, W. Cocalico.
Franklin M. Krick, Adamstown.
John S. Fissel, Columbia.
Thursday, February 18, 1915.
Frederick R. Leonard, Mountville..
Elmira R. Bair, City.

Rebecca Cassel, W. Lampeter.
Samuel J. Rodgers, Drumore.
John J. Zook, Leacock.
Harriet Brubaker, Rapho.
Henry Smoker, City.

Jane G. McFarland, Mt. Joy Boro.
C. B. and Emma Mellinger, Colerain.

SUPERIOR COURT DECISIONS. Wednesday, February 24, 1915.

By RICE, P. J.

take action on the death of Hon. W. U.

Judge Landis was made chairman of

Bar Meeting,

To Take Action on the Death of Hon. W. U. HENSEL, LL. D., Litt. D. William Uhler Hensel was born in Quarryville, Pa., December 4, 1851. He was of German Lutheran and English-Quaker descent on his father's side and Pennsylvania-German on his mother's side.

His father was Geo. W. Hensel and his mother née Anna M. Uhler.

After attending the Chestnut Level, Parkesburg and Paradise Academies, he entered Franklin & Marshall College and graduated with the class of 1870.

He studied law in the office of David G. Eshleman, and was admitted to the Bar January 23, 1873.

In May, 1874, he entered journalism, becoming part owner of the "Lancaster Intelligencer."

He was State Chairman of the Democratic party from 1882 to 1887 and delegate to its national conventions of 1880, 1884, 1888 and 1892.

In 1887, he again took up legal practice in Lancaster, Pa., becoming associated with the present Chief Justice of Pennsylvania in the law firm of Brown and Hensel.

In 1891, Governor Pattison appointed him Attorney-General of Pennsylvania. In 1898, he was elected president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

He was a vice-president of the American Bar Association, and a member of the State Board of Law Examiners.

He was president of the Lancaster County Bar Association.

He died at Savannah, Georgia, on Saturday, February 27, 1915, at 5 o'clock

a. m.

A meeting of the Lancaster Bar was held in the large Court Room at 10 o'clock a. m., Tuesday, March 2nd, to

secretary.

On taking the chair Judge Landis said:

Gentlemen of the Bar:

According to our custom we meet to review the career of our deceased brother, William U. Hensel, each in his own way, to pay his last tribute to his memory.

The story of his life, his achievements at the Bar and elsewhere, and the triumphs won by him, are graphic pages in our own history. They cover so wide. a range that if I were to more than touch upon them, I might perhaps tax your patience, or at least might take from others time which they can better fill.

Let us then first make up the formal record of his life: Mr. Hensel was born on December 4, 1851, in the County of Lancaster, and he died on Saturday, February 27, 1915, about 5 o'clock a. m., in the city of Savannah.

His life was full of action, and he labored long and well. And yet his life. was tinted with joy. The beautiful words of Emerson which he used on a like occasion for a dear friend, come to my lips:

"July was in his sunny heart,
October in his liberal hand."

He and I read law in the same office. I now recall the kindly face of that old Roman, David G. Eshleman, our preceptor. He was named the chancellor, and those who knew him know that he was learned. After our admissions we both staid with him-Mr. Hensel for a short time only, but I for a long period. Mr. Hensel came to the Bar on January 23, 1873, and I on September 8, 1877. Of course I entered the office long after he had left it.

After his admission he met with the success which usually attends a beginner, and perhaps losing hope, as many have done before and since, he was attracted to journalism as a better field. Buying out the one-half interest in the "Intelli

firm of Steinman & Hensel opened up business. It was during this periodnamely, in 1880-that the celebrated case of Ex parte Steinman and Hensel arose. It is reported in 95 Penna. at page 220. Because of a publication in their newspaper concerning some election prosecutions, the editors were summoned before the late Judge Patterson, and rules having been entered upon them, they were subsequently disbarred as attorneys. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, this decree was reversed, and they were reinstated to their profession. their profession. While an editor he took an active interest in politics, and became influential in the councils of his party.

But his heart was after all with the profession of the law, and refusing a position which offered large compensation and high future advancement, he opened an office in the Eshleman Building, and attempted to enter once more upon its practice. Then came the turn

ing-point in his career. In 1887, the present Chief Justice, who was then burdened by a practice too extensive for his strength, took him into partnership, and the firm of Brown & Hensel was formed. This firm at that time had, and thereafter continually attracted to itself, a large amount of business, and it was known as one of the prominent firms throughout the State. It continued until 1899, when Justice Brown took his place upon the Supreme Bench. It showed the calibre of his mind, and the strength of his genius that after so many years devoted to another pursuit, he could at once plunge into the law, and shortly occupy its foremost station. In three years-in 1890-he was appointed by Governor Pattison Attorney-General of the State. That he bore himself with credit in his high office is evidenced by the Bardsley Case and others of similar character, which appears in the reports. He was soon rated as among the foremost lawyers in the State, and he never lost that rank.

When the State Bar Association was formed he was one of its organizers. He afterwards became its president, and he has been up to this time Chairman of its

yers in our commonwealth have wielded so potent an influence in the moulding of its statutes. He was also a member of the American Bar Association, and took an active interest in its work.

He was the soul of honor, and his conduct to the court leaves only pleasant recollections. It is needless to dwell at any length on his personal relations to the Bar. His home and heart were always open to us, and many pleasures have we experienced at his hands.

In thinking of him, I am reminded of these lines, which seem to me so fitting to his departure:

"Long he slumbers; will he waken, greeting as he used to do

With his kindly playful smile his old companions, me and you,

Long he slumbers - though the wind of morning sweetly blows to sea Though his barque has weighed its anchor, and the tide is flowing free?

All his days were given to action, all his powers of mind and will

Now the restless heart is silent, and his busy brain is still."

And now we draw down the curtain on his mortal life, leaving to those who loved him only tender memories.

On motion, the Chair appointed Judge Hassler, John E. Malone, William N. Appel, Redmond Conyngham and Bernard J. Myers as a committee to draw up suitable resolutions, who reported the following which were adopted:

"With feelings of appreciation for his life and sorrow for his death, we his fellow-members of the Bar, enscribe this minute to the memory of Hon. William Uhler Hensel, our well-loved brother.

In the years that have passed since we have joined the ranks of this Bar men have come and men have gone. Lawyers of talent and learning have run their course, and each has left his impress on the minds of his associates and successors, but no one has reached so high a plane, has shown the same versatility of genius, or the wide range of knowledge and achievement, as he whose career has now been closed by death.

His talents were exceptional. Orator, journalist, lawyer, statesman larger sense, college president, author,

and literateur, historian, social leader and generous host, he covered the whole range of activities, nor because of these did he give sparingly to his profession and his State.

His capacity for labor was unequaled and his eagerness to advance the cause of justice and the public good could be at all times confidently counted upon. Even in the days of his decline his efforts remained unchecked. His service to the public was for the most part without money and without price.

His home was dear to him, and he was proud of it. To spread the fame of his city and his county was to him an unending delight. By reason of his large acquaintanceship with public men, he carried far and wide the story of our people both by speech and pen.

He was a man of highest instincts and integrity, and his banner was always on the outer walls of truth. He was generous in impulses and in actions. In times of personal stress no one of his associates ever went to him for aid or counsel without receiving cheerfully the best that he could give.

He had a happy home and a happy life, over which now in this hour of grief we silently draw the pall. He lived his life as he would have it, and if it was all too short for the dear ones and friends he leaves behind, yet it was filled to the measure, when he laid down to rest."

While the committee was deliberating, Judge Smith said:

Mr. Chairman:

In the study of history we have been impressed by a life in each epochal period. Indeed, many have thought that the life had been the cause of the signal event, and not a product of the ages. While comparatively few lives in the stride of eras have left distinct footprints in history, there have been many who have concretely developed for human happiness and culture. This

community has been blessed by one who has made a deep impression and whose example has been and will be elevating, one who has diversified and multiplied our joys and intensified in us, and some

beyond our borders, the hope of a fuller understanding of life. Having been an exception to the biblical pronouncement that, "A prophet is not without honor but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own home," the people of this community are grieving because of the death of Hensel.

He was a superior man, having a superior quality of brains, energy, character. Saturated with information and impelled by a restless energy, he dispatched an immense amount of professional, literary and miscellaneous work, and with an accuracy, efficiency and expedition that staggers belief. His manner, by reason of his promptness of action, to some at times seemed brusque, but none could be quicker than he to detect its searing effect, and none loved more than he to temper the feelings of an overly-sensitive one with the sunshine of his beneficence.

A comparison of one's intellect with his would be glory enough for the ordinary big man. Demagogues with less. oratorical power than his could incite to revolution. To be classed with him as a lawyer would distinguish any one.

He elevated the tone of our bar. His judgment was excellent. His magnanimity was sublime.

There was no cant in his make-up, and he had little respect for those who in the guise of benefactors are perpetually inflicting on society their ill-digested plans for man's uplift at the sacrifice of his liberty of thought and freedom of action. His reason repelled their empty morality and denounced their despotic benevolence. Unlike them he was not everlastingly searching for the evil in men. He looked for the good in them, and found it. He was not evil-minded. His conscience was too sane and his honesty too pure to encourage the fitful flashes of fanatics, and his spirituality too divine to countenance commerce of Christianity. But he never prayed, "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are ".

Yet some of these things may be said of many men, and many of them of some men. In the way I choose to remember him he was more than a brilliant

scholar, a distinguished lawyer, and a superior man. He evidenced the force of co-operative history by an advance step in humanity. I make no pretense to having been in his confidence. I judge his life by his acts, not from any knowledge of his hidden thoughts and sacred beliefs. Alone from my contemplation and study of life and my sincerity and admiration of our friend, do I look upon him as having ben a typical embodiment of advanced historical development. It is not necessary to recite concrete acts of his life. All of you know of some of them. I prefer to touch some of his attributes and assert conclusions, and in so doing it will be noticed that I have adapted the thoughts of a great philosopher, a stalwart champion of Christianity, and his words have been paraphrased as little as possible.

66

Philosophers rule the world, and are always in advance of it; but their ideas filter through a long distance before they reach the mass of the people." It has been said of an eminent scholar and profound thinker that, "The philosophy of the seventeenth century underlies the thought of to-day." But individuals, here and there, even if not schooled in philosophy, seem by their lives to typify philosophical and, therefore, historical progress. The spirit of it became infused in their being and expression is given in their lives. It is as an advanced human type that I gauge our friend.

Many men have there been who were keen of intellect and resourceful in expedients, commonly honest and boastful of a pietistic faith, whose passing was a relief to a community, and often to their families too, because however circumspectly they conformed to conventionalities and dogmas, however great their achievements, their lives were wanting in that "totality of culture" which was approached in such a marked degree by Mr. Hensel. His life was broad, free, clear, inspired by a greater independence and spiritual spontaneity than would be possible for one with a less appreciative attitude towards the world. He seemed to have been impelled by the force of accumulated history and have felt the enormous advance mankind as an in

66

dustrial whole has made through the development of co-operative work in history and society." In the progress of activity he found hope and joy. It was not possible for him to cease to act and "give himself up to calm repose". He acted as if "life must seek its reward not so much in any definite conclusion to its work as in the fact that it is pressing forward through struggle and experience to new depths within itself, that it is making something more of itself, putting more energy and resolution into its fight with the hostile element". In this way in him "the content and force of a spirituality was continually augmented", and his "life lifted thereby to a higher level". He had an active religion in which divine and human were "no longer so opposed that he who would rightly honor God must perforce entertain a low opinion of man". low opinion of man". To him “freedom and grace no longer stood in opposition, but were complementary aspects of one and the same process". He acted as if "a consciousness of power is no longer incompatible with reverence, but that the two sentiments demand and help each other". Thus he lived a manly, upright, joyful life, "the best that human nature is able to comprehend". He did not break with a Christian life, but became a further development of it. He found no pleasure "in truckling wails over "the wickedness of world". saw in it "beauty, coherence and life", through a spiritual vision of a life "above it and beneath it, but a life which fashioned it and found itself again in it". He did not draw its content from the world, but developed it "through contact with the world, assimilating and subduing it". He reached a lofty point of view and thus saw that "among men must we seek God". He looked " for God in close connection with human life rather than in some transcendental relation to it". To him it was "important that whilst immanental movements should maintain their rights in the world of work, yet that the divine transcendence should at the same time be carefully guarded". Religion ever remained to him "an essential constituent of life", but a religion which stands within "a

He