One of the reforms demanded by the British memorandum was the improvement of the judiciary. Here there was indeed real reason for complaint. Liberia has few well trained lawyers; it was not uncommon for a man to be appointed judge who had no legal training; there were not infrequent cases of personal and professional misconduct on the part of judges. President Barclay, in his message of 1908, a notable document be it said in passing, says the following: “International attacks upon this (our judicial system) commenced some years ago, and the movement was initiated by citizens of the German Empire living in Liberia. But the crisis has been precipitated by our people. When the editor of the _African League_, himself an ex-judge, an attorney at law, a citizen, publishes a special edition of his paper, headed “Startling Revelations,” in which the judicial system of the country is attacked both in its personnel as well as on its administrative side, when he describes himself as a scapegoat and martyr, and when months pass and no reply to his attack is made by the persons affected, what conclusion, do you think, can other communities of the world, having business interests in Liberia, draw?” In his address, _The Impartial Administration of Justice, the Corner-Stone of a Nation_, Justice T. McCants Stewart says: “It can not be denied, however, that our judiciary to-day is the object of serious charges both by foreigners and our own citizens, and they are charges which demand serious consideration. They can not be brushed aside. The British Government is not alone in making these charges. Our own people have made them, and our Chief Executive has declared to the Legislature that evils exist in our judicial system which must be speedily remedied if we desire to strengthen ourselves as a nation. Gentlemen of the Bar: Can we be quiet while our judges are charged both at home and abroad with: (1) ignorance; (2) excessive use of intoxicants; (3) the exhibition of prejudice or passion in the trial of cases; (4) shocking immorality; (5) accepting retainers from private parties; (6) sharing moneys as a reward for the arrest of criminals; (7) accepting bribes?” This is specific enough and bad enough. To the credit of the nation be it said that reforms have seriously been undertaken, and the present condition of the judiciary is greatly improved. It is rather interesting that we ourselves at this moment are agitating against a corrupt judiciary; it is scarcely likely that we are in a condition for stone-throwing.