The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-27
THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBLE
TIES OF La WYERS.


WE have received several communications
in reply to the article with the above title
which appeared in this paper on Friday last,
all of which protest against the references
made to Judge Sharswood as being unjust
in itself and as uncalled for by his letter to
Mr.. David Dudley Field. Our correspond
ents, in their eagerness to champion Judge
Sharswood, have all of them lost sight of the
real point at issue. The pamphlet of Mr..
Field on '"The Duties and Responsibilities of
Counsel and Judge Sharwoods endorsement
of it both assert, what sensible man will
deny, that lawyer has right to defend
client of known bad character. 1t is certain
that nothing has appeared in these columns
even limiting at the idea that lawyer may
not accept a case from anybody, and if we
do not go below the surface the Field PAM
phlet and the Sharswood letter may perhaps
be considered as incontrovertible. The real
accusation made against Mr.. Field, however,
was not that he defended men of known bad
character, but that he aided them in the
prosecution of certain villainous schemes, and
that in SO doing he exceeded the limits of his
legitimate duties as counsel. In his PAM
phlet Mr.. Field adroitly attempts to avoid the
real charge brought against him, and his
pamphlet is in no sense a suitable defense. 1t
is scarcely possible that Judge Sharswood
when he wrote his letter was ignorant of the
nature of the accusation made against Mr..
Field, and although he also avoids the real
issue, the fact of his writing such letter,
under all the circumstances of the case, at
least gives color to the supposition that he
desired to defend Mr.. Field against the at
tacks of those who declare that in becoming
the mere tool of such men as Fisk, Tweed,
and Sweeney he disgraced himself and his
profession.
To leave Mr.. Field to the tender mercies
of the journalists and honorable members of
the bar of his own State and city, we can
illustrate our position in this matter by a
reference to the "ways that are dark and the
tricks that are vain" of certain Philadelphia
practitioners. Not many weeks ago Messrs.
William B. Mann and Lewis @. Cassidy, two
well-known lawyers of this city, were busily
engaged at Harrisburg in procuring pardon
for one Richard Ficken, wealthy sugar re-
finer of this city, who, on the 14th of Febru-
ary, 1870, shot boy named Arthur Curran
and then fed to Europe to avoid being pun
ished for his crime. Ficken was willing to
expend large sum of money to cheat justice,
and Messrs. Mann and Cassidy were willing to
exert themselves to prevent him from being
brought to trial. They found the Governor
and the Attorney General complaisant, and
Richard Ficken was, without a trial,
granted free and unconditional pardon,
for offenses of which he had never legally
been pronounced guilty. Judge Sharswood
having undertaken the defense of Mr.. David
Dudley Field, cannot he supplement his
letter to that gentleman by giving a candid
Messrs. Mann and Cassidy in the Ficken case?
We contend that these lawyers exceeded their
legitimate functions when they attempted to
prevent Ficken from being brought to trial
by procuring from the Governor pardon
while the criminal was fugitive from JUS
tice. The conduct of Messrs Mann and Cas-
sidy in the Ficken case is precisely analogous
to that of MIR. David Dudley Field in re-
peated instances while acting as COUNSEL fol
Fisk and the Tammany ring. Messrs Mann
and Cassidy had a perfect righ. to act as
Fickens counsel, and no one would ever
have found fault With them fol
so doing, but they, the Governor
the Attorney General and all others concerned
in the Fieken pardon business were guilty o.
the offense of compounding felony, and i
the laws were properly administered the.
would be punished. II is q fair inference