Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1859-12-17
Saturday Morning, Dec. II, 1859.
IN looking over the column. of claw in

telligence," IN recent number of the
Weekly london Times, VIC were struck with
the remarks of tho Lord Chief Baron, in a
case pending in the. Court of Exchequer.
The action had been brought by certain
Mrs. sSyynfen, against Lord Chelmsford
for damages alleged to have been occa-
stoned by the defendant, (then Sir Frcdcr-
lex Thesiger, an attorney, having COM
promised an action in which she was in
terested. The attorney for the plaintiff
proceeded to argue that the making of
compromise, under the circumstances, was
AFRAID upon his client. Baron Bramwell
(oue;of the judges of the court remarked
that he thought the plaintiff attorney. did
not mean to assert, that Lord Chelmsford
was guilty of moral fraud, but merely of
an actionablc breach of duty.
The Lord Chief Baron ithereupop inter-,
posed to say that at was very much to be
regretted that any word in the language
should mean one thing in court of JUS
ticeGand sanotherg thing out of it."E He,
Proceeded, further to state that ever Since
he had been in tho profession, he had ell
dcavored to get rid of that mere technical
jargon which made things in court of
Justice mean othsr than they meant ont
of it., ~
With the notions commonly entertained
on this side of the atlantic, of the strict
nessand technicality of law proceedings in
England, it seems a little strange to hear
of.speh language coming from the lips of
one of the highest judicial officers in that
country. 1t looks little as though Eng
land were going to lead us in the work of
legal reform, or rather, as though she has
already takan the lead 1t can scarcely be
concealed that, with all our talk about lop-
ping off the crudities and absurditics of
practical law, and reducing the abstruse
sciences to n simple system, there yet re-
mains vast deal of nonsense in the sub
tie distinctions and hair-splitting defini-
tions which still compose part of our legal
system. If law were justice, or were
nothing more than the results of fair and
unarti6cial reasoning, few men of ordinary
judgment would ever mistake what the law
actually is. But, as 1t is, no man, how
correct soever his Judgment .enothert things
may be, can,unless he readthe books, give
anything more than II guess of what the law
which he is bound to obey is A profess
sional mana l0wyer-must be consulted
in regard to matters wuich, in their moral
aspect, present no difficulties to the mind,
but which, in their legal character, admit
of solption only by the application of art
fulhanda artificial rules. That which in
the eye of morals and plain Judgment is
: white, is in the eye of the law clearly and
entirely black. That which is morally
wrong, when transplanted into a court of
justice, Immediately becomes legally right
And. even where moral right and legal
right do correspond, the names of things
are so often changed that it is beyond the
power of any one, except professional
man, to understand anything of law pro-
ceedings. The word :sfraud'' has settled
and fYed meaning; yet when lawyers use
it, it may or it may not, as the case may
be, mean what it expresses. In the case
above referred to, neither attorneys nor
judges pretended to say that the defendant
was guilty of fraud, as that word is used
in our ordinary language, yet legally his
acts were fraudulent. Now, what is the
use of calling that fraud, which is not
fraud II 1t is an ugly word at best, and
ought not to be made use of unless GER
tainly necessary. Above all, the law
ought not to take the light liberty of say
ing that man has committed fraud when
neither its own spirit, nor the spirit of
morality pronounce his deeds fraudulent
We have taken occasion to present the
above single specimen because the evil of
which the English Lord Chief Baron com
plains exists amongst US, as well as in the
country from which we derive our laws
We may well express the regret which he
uttered. aud at the same time we should
set, about reruedying what we cannot help
condemning.
Ma, HAsk1S said, on Monday, in the
House, that he had heard on the floor last
week upwards ola dozen Southern speech
es, every one of which breathed disunion
sentiments, while he had not heard a
speech from the opposite side which did
not. breathe q spirit of-devotion to the
Union and for the protection of the South
in all its constitutional rights This isia
striking rebuke to those who are accusing
the Northiof threatening the Union. The
Theonly threats which have been made
have come from the South. Not word
has. been uttered by single one of those
Northern men who have been sent to Wash
ingtOn as the opponents of Northern senti-
meRt that. is not true to the constitution