the reports shall be published semi-annually and paged continuously, until there shall be sufficient matter to form one volume of not less than six hundred pages. The act also provides that fifteen hundred copies shall be published by the state. The compensation allowed for reporting the cases is one hundred and fifty dollars a year. Under authority of this act four volumes have been published. The first three contain the cases from March term, 1821, to August term, 1834, inclusive. The fourth volume, containing subsequent cases, we have not seen. The first two volumes cannot now be obtained, as most of the copies were destroyed by fire, when the legislative hall at Jefferson was burnt. We understand, however, that they are soon to be republished.

The whole number of volumes above mentioned is five hundred and thirty-six; and we may safely calculate on an annual addition of thirty volumes. Several sets have passed through a second edition, and some are stereotyped. Besides the above mentioned regular reports, there have been published at different times reports of single cases, which have been deemed particularly important, or have excited the attention of the public; such as the trials of Aaron Burr, and judges Peck and Chase, on impeachment, before the senate of the United States; the Dartmouth college case, and a variety of criminal and civil cases, both in the circuit courts of the United States and in the different state tribunals. For a catalogue of the most important of these, the reader is referred to the second volume of Mr. Hoffman's Legal Outlines.

In compiling this article we have derived some assistance from Griffith's Law Register, which gives a pretty accurate account of the reports up to the time of its publication in 1821, 1822. But most of the statements here made are founded on an examination of the works themselves, and on information

obtained from our correspondents in various states, to whose contributions we are much indebted, and who will please to accept our thanks for their valuable assistance. If, notwithstanding the great pains we have taken to make our account of American reports and reporters as full and as accurate as possible, any mistakes or omissions should be discovered therein, we hope some of our friends will do us the favor to point them out, and at the same time furnish us with the means for their correction.

G. G.

ART. VI.-BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF ELISHA COOKE.

ELISHA COOKE, the subject of this notice, filled an important place in the history of Massachusetts, during one of its most interesting periods. He was born in Boston, September 16, 1637, and was graduated at Harvard college at the age of twenty. In a class of seven, his name stands the fifth in the catalogue, indicating that his family was of an humble rank.

He studied medicine, and became a physician in Boston, where he practised with great success and a high professional reputation.

He took a part in politics pretty early in life, and continued to be deeply engaged in them as long as he lived. He was admitted a freeman in 1673, and from 1681 to 1683 was a representative in the general court, the last year having been speaker of the house.

It was during this period, it will be recollected, that the struggle was going on between the crown and the colony in relation to rescinding the charter, in which the malignant zeal of Randolph was so conspicuous. Mr. Cooke was among the most ardent in maintaining the integrity of the charter, and for his exertions in this respect, was charged,

with others of the same party, by Randolph, before the lords of the council, with being guilty of a high misde

meanor.

The party who were for sustaining the charter having the ascendency in the colony, Mr. Cooke was chosen one of the assistants at the elections in 1684, 1685, and 1686, and was thus in the government when Dudley's commission as president of New England was received. All the efforts of the friends of the charter had in the mean time proved abortive. It had been annulled by arbitrary power, although with the forms of law, and the people found themselves at the mercy of a bigoted tyrant's caprice. Andros succeeded Dudley with greatly extended powers, and with no feelings of delicacy or humanity to restrain their utmost exercise. The party to which Cooke belonged were made to feel the oppressive hand of the government, until it could no longer be endured. The people rose at last, and deposing Andros, resumed their charter to which they were so strongly attached, and with it their former administration of the government. Cooke was made one of the council of safety, to whom in the mean time the powers of the government were committed, and Andros, Dudley and others of the deposed officers of the crown were sent home to England, to answer to the charges of the colony against them.

The prosecution of these charges became a matter of great moment, and it was deemed important to the colony, to be represented at London by some of their ablest men. Mather was already there, and with him was connected sir Henry Ashurst as colonial agent. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Oakes were selected as their associates for this purpose. They became embarrassed partly by their instructions, and partly by a disagreement among themselves, and instead of prosecuting their charges against Andros with any effect, they found themselves in the situation rather of defendants against attacks made upon the colony, than of complainants

against its oppressors. Andros and Dudley escaped censure, and were rewarded with new honors, while every effort of the agents to obtain a restoration of the former charter was resisted and defeated by the crown. Cooke adhered to his resolution to accept nothing in its stead, and when a new charter had been obtained through the instrumentality of Mr. Mather, he endeavored to prevent its adoption by the people of Massachusetts.

In consequence of this, the name of Mr. Cooke was left out of the commission of counsellors. The people, however, at the first election which took place in May, 1693, chose him a member of that body; but governor Phipps, in order to revenge himself upon Mr. Cooke, for having been opposed to his appointment as chief magistrate, refused to ratify the choice. Mr. Cooke did not lose any of his popularity by these measures, and upon governor Phipps being recalled to England, he was again elected to the council, and continued a member of that board until the arrival of governor Dudley, who, in 1703, negatived his election. The cause of this was the bitter hatred with which Dudley regarded those who had been the most active at the time of the revolution in 1689, and especially Mr. Cooke, on account of his exertions in England to prosecute the complaints of the colony against the associates of Andros.

The people, nevertheless, continued to manifest their confidence in Mr. Cooke, by electing him to the council, and the governor continued to indulge his revenge by negativing his election, until 1715, when he permitted him to take his seat at the council board, of which body he was a member at the time of his death.

He was appointed to the bench of the superior court as a successor to judge Richards, in 1695, and continued to hold the office until the arrival of governor Dudley in 1702. Upon his coming into office, a new commission was issued

to the judges of that court, and the name of Mr. Cooke was omitted.

This is the only connexion, of which there is any account, of Mr. Cooke with the judiciary of Massachusetts. Indeed, it was not to be expected, that any one whose principles were as liberal as his could find favor with a royal governor, and least of all, in the relation of judge, from whose want of independence, as the judiciary was then constituted, a subserviency to the power that commissioned him would be expected, but to which, as it was well known, Mr. Cooke would never submit.

It is, therefore, with the political history of the commonwealth, that his name is chiefly identified, and for more than forty years he held a prominent rank among the political men of his times. He was the idol of the people, and justly merited their regard. He left his name, his profession, his principles and his farm to his son, who more than filled his place, and was long distinguished as the leader of the democratic party of the province, in its struggle at a later period against the encroachments of the government. The name of Elisha Cooke, jr. is more familiar in the history of Massachusetts, than that of his father, who has been the subject of this article, but both were eminent physicians, both held high judicial offices, and each was in his day the leader of the popular party in the province.

Mr. Cooke married a daughter of governor Leverett. A daughter of his son Elisha married judge Saltonstall, and her descendants-always among the most respectable families in the common wealth-are the only descendants of the family of Mr. Cooke.

He died on the 31st October, 1715, at the age of 78 years, leaving a large estate, retaining to the last the confidence of the people, and after pursuing through a long life a firm and consistent course as a politician.

E. W.