The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-10
sP1R1x or xzn PRESS.
RdItorIaI Opinions of tho Loading Journals
IJpou Current Topics Compiled Every
DaV for the KveniBG Telegraph.
DOES A FEE LICENSE COUNSEL TO
DEFEND DISHONESTY?


and difficult subject, but it is one to which
we can hardly help coming, after what we
have said on various occasions during the
last three or four months with regard to the
relations Of the bar to the judiciary, and to
the community Mt large. Moreover, the
question which we are going to ask is one
which we venture to say, has risen a hundred
times in the mind of every honest man who
has watched the course of the Erie litigation
in our courts during the last year or two. 1t
is this:-The defects of our judicial system
being what they are, and the character of
judges being what it is, what is the duty of
counsel in the matter of using these defects,
and the bad character of the judges, in aid of
the schemes of notorious scoundrels!
To come down to particulars-or, as
Lord Bacon says, to clothe our case
in circumstances-is it, or is it not,
the duty of leading men at our Bar to place
their professional services at the disposal of
Fisk, Gould Il Co., and, in consideration of
cash down, use all the ability they possess,
and all the advantages the admitted faults
of our law and the admitted dishonesty of
our judges give them, to help these worthless
in carrying out any attacks on the property of
other people which may suggest themselves
to them We believe it is not denied that
Fisk and Gould's dealings with the property
of the stockholders of the Erie Road has
been in the nature of a swindle, or, at all
events, a gross breach of trust; and we
believe it is not denied that these breaches
of trust would not have been possible if our
judicial system and judges were what they
ought to be. Remember, we are not now
talking about technical breach of trust, and
we hope, therefore, no lawyer will give him
self the trouble to write us letter showing
us that Fisk and Gould are not fraudulent
trustees under the statute. What we mean is,
that they have, in the eyes of the commu-
nifty, and beyond all manner of doubt, de-
stroyed or appropriated, or failed to preserve,
immense amounts of property belonging to
others, and committed to their care; and it Is
believed, and has never been denied, so far
as we know, that they during this swindle
had corrupt relations with at least one Judge
on the bench, which have made hira their
subservient tool, and prevented him ever
denying any order for which they asked!
They occupy, in short, the position of enc
mics of nearly everything the community
holds dear, poisoning its morals as well as its
jurisprudence through their career.
We know very well that the general rule is
that it is the business of the lawyer to put
the legal machinery in motion for every man
who pays him, and that it would not do-in
fact, might often operate as denial of JUS
tioe-for lawyers to scrutinize too closely their
clients probity. Any such practice, even if
it were possible, would often operate as a
denial of justice. We know, too, what
have claimed for the advocate, both in the
choice of his causes, and in his manner of
conducting them. Brougham's celebrated de-
finition of his duty to his client, every school
boy is familiar with; though Brougham spoke
of his duty after he lad accepted the retainer.
We trust, however, that for the honor of
human nature no bar has ever acted on any such
rule. No body of lawyers have ever man
aged to rid themselves so completely of all
sense of moral responsibility and intellectual
pride, as to take all causes that were brought
to them, without any regard to their merits
Nearly every lawyer in fact, draws the line
somewhere, and adopts some principle of
selection. Some will not take criminal or
divorce cases; others will not appear in GER
tain courts, and others will not appear except
in cases involving very large interests. One
of the rewards of success at the Bar indeed
Is the increased liberty of choice it gives the
lawyer as regards the character of his bust
ness. TO man of high character and aims,
and sensible of his obligations to his country
and to civilization, it gives a chance of COM
ing very near the popular ideal of the advo-
cate, of the defender of the oppressed, the
pursuer of the wrong-doer, the very ear of
justice herself. We believe we may say,
without hesitation, that the usage of the Bar
of all civilized countries imposes on
the leading men of the profession the
duty of refusing the briefs of notori-
GUS rascals, or helping them in any way
In the perpetration of moral frauds A case
was reported the other day in the Queens
Bench in London, in which woman of light
character sued an attorney for not defending
an action, and letting Judgment be taken
against her by default. He proved that he
refused to defend it for her, as she admitted
the claim, and only sought for delay, anG
that her expectation that he would defend il
was excited by mistake of his clerk. The
jury found for him without hesitation, anC
the Lord Chief Justice strongly commended
him, and stated his course as that which
was incumbent on all respectable prac
titioners; and yet the standard of profes
sional morals in England is not nearly a
high among the attorneys as it is among tn
barristers.
OF course, it may be said, and probabl
will be said by any lawyer:-''If refuse t.
accept the retainers of scoundrels, they vii
go to some one else, who will accept them
and then the result will be the same in tn
end" But then keeping brothel or an
other disreputable calling may be defended il
The same way. Some one is sure to keep a
many as there is demand for and VIII
should not you? Besides, we deny that
makes no difference who brings the cases O
rascals into court, as long as they ar
brought by some one. 1t makes great des
of difference. If they are brought by me
from the lower walks of the profession, be
cause none others will bring them, the yer
fact stamps them with moral opprobrium, an
calls the attention of the public to their res
nature. Public sentiment receives no grea
injury from seeing Tombs shyster defend
ing lottery policy dealers or mock auctioneert
but public sentiment would derive serious in