wrong door. Every reason of justice and right demands that he should be merely directed to the proper tribunal when such a mistake has been made. And if the form of the remedy, as at law, is too narrow or not supple enough to enable justice to be done upon principles of equity, we think the parties should at once have their cause transferred to that forum whose machinery is adequate to meet the ends of right and justice. VII. A BILL to amend and re-enact section 3267 of the Code of Virginia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Delegates of Virginia, That section 3267 of the Code of Virginia be amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows: Section 3267. Replications to pleas.-In any action the plaintiff may reply as many matters, whether of law or fact, to the defendant's plea as he may think necessary. There shall be no other traverse of any plea, or joinder of issue on the part of the plaintiff, than that the plaintiff "replies generally" to such plea, or words to that effect; and by such a traverse, or by going to trial without any traverse, the plaintiff shall be considered as controverting all the material allegations of the plea. But when the plaintiff relies upon new matter in answer to the plea he shall state the same specially in his replication in plain and concise language; and no evidence shall be received of any new matter which is not so stated. But when the plaintiff relies upon new matter to the plea he shall state the same specially in his replication in plain and certain language, and the defendant shall do the same when he relies upon new matter in answer to the new mater thus alleged by the plaintiff, and no evidence shall be received of any new matter which is not so stated. NOTE. The abolition of all forms of pleas, and hence of formal commencements and conclusions. as attempted in the committee's amendment to section 3269, seems to call for special provision as to the subsequent pleadings. Under the system now prevailing, the conclusion of the plea (e. g., to the country or with a verification) determines the character of the replication, i. e., whether it shall be a mere similiter, or whether it shall be special. It seems to the committee that the present rule, which insists upon absolute singleness of issue in all pleadings subsequent to the plea, and therefore prohibiting a demurrer and a reply to the same plea, is unsatisfactory to the profession and should be abolished. The practice in the courts in allowing the same thing to be indirectly accomplished (as by motion to strike out the plea or the withdrawal of a demurrer before final judgment upon it, and then replying to the fact) indicates the necessity for a relaxation of the rule. It is the intention of the above amendment to allow the same latitude in respect to the replication as already exists in respect to pleas. It is of first importance that the parties come to an issue as speedily as possible. Doubtless this consideration induced the courts to give such latitude to the plea of the general issue, in order to cut off subsequent pleadings, which not only prolonged the litigation, but frequently confused the issues. The above amendment proposes to abolish all pleadings subsequent to the replication. Indeed, it practically dispenses with the replication itself, except where new matter is relied upon in answer to the plea, thus somewhat assimilating the procedure to the practice in chancery, where the general replication makes up the issue. When the plaintiff has set out his case at large in his declaration, and the defendant has in his plea stated his defence with equal clearness, as the amendment of section 3269 requires that he shall do, there is no practical need of a replication, save in setting up new matter. Respectfully submitted, S. S. P. PATTESON, R. T. BARTON, J. R. TUCKER, R. T. W. DUKE, Committee. MEMORIALS. WILLIAM W. GORDON. Since the last meeting of the Bar Association of Virginia a bolt has fallen in our midst which reached the brightest one amongst us, and struck down our best beloved companion and friend; the brightest legal mind, the warmest heart, the purest life, the most generous friend, the knightliest gentleman in our ranks, Colonel William W. Gordon, of the Richmond Bar. Though lost to us by a mysterious Providence, to which we must bow in humble submission, yet he is not lost to memory, but dear through a thousand sacred recollections. We recall him in the light of innumerable pleasing associations which will ever keep his name and noble characteristics to us as a green and fadeless memory. Colonel Gordon was a native Virginian, born on the banks of the beautiful Rappahannock river, in the county of Essex, in Eastern Virginia, at the home of his parents, in the town of Tappahannock. With his earliest breath he was inspired with all those principles which exemplify and adorn Virginia's name and character. From his cradle he was a typical Virginian. Educated by his father, who was a man of letters and of extensive attainments, he early exhibited that love of letters and devotion to truth and honor which pointed with prophetic hand to his future shining career. Educated at the Virginia Military Institute, where he graduated with distinction, after some years of public service as Professor in his Alma Mater, and later in the United States Coast Survey, he began the study of the law in the University of Virginia, where, although delicate in body and troubled at that period of his life with weak eyes, he brought to bear his wonderful powers of memory which distinguished him through life, maintained the lead among his classmates, and bore off the honors of his class, and left the University perhaps the best equip ped lawyer of his age in the State. He returned to his native county and began a career there at the bar which brought him fame in the very morning of his professional career. Subsequently he settled in Greenbrier county and entered upon a career at the bar at Lewisburg, the place of session in those days of the Virginia Court of Appeals, and quickly, as the law partner of the Hon. William Smith (a distinguished and successful lawyer), he stepped into the front rank of the profession among the members of the famous bar of that locality. And an inspection of the reports of the Court of Appeals of that period shows that he was already abreast of the leaders of that bar. But the war breaking out, the reverberations of the first guns had scarcely awoke the echoes of the startled nation, when he was marching to the east at the head of a gallant band of dragoons, composed of the true sons of Greenbrier, to confront the enemies of his native State on the borders of her sacred soil; and shortly after (shoulder to shoulder with the heroic sons of his native Essex under the lead of the lamented Captain Latane, the companion of his boyhood, with his brave mountainers), he answered the Confederate rollcall on the banks of the Potomac. But he was not destined to win his knightly spurs in the cavalry of the immortal Ashby. Governor John Letcher, the war Governor of Virginia, himself a citizen of Lexington, living under the shadow of the dome of the Military Institute, who knew the distinguished career at that place of this young captain, commissioned him colonel of the newly organized Twentyseventh Virginia Infantry, which, within a few weeks, was destined to form part of that "Stonewall" at Manassas upon which the tide of Federal invasion rolled in vain, and which gave to its immortal commander his war name, so dear to Virginians, so terrible to her enemies, so familiar to and so honored by the civilized world. Here he won praise from Stonewall Jackson, and was crowned with laurels; and Colonel Gordon, of the "Stonewall Brigade," would never have been forgotten by Virginians if he had never returned to his beloved profession. But his naturally delicate constitution was unequal to the hardships of a soldier's life. He grew too weak to sit his horse, and refusing to retire, he was re |