New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-17


Democratic Legislature, and it is also ad-
mitted that these plans were such as
courts of justice ought not to have tav-
ored. It is confessed, also, that Tavld
Dudley Field furnished most Of the brains
to effect the success OF Fisk & Co. MIR.
Bowles charged Mr. Field with being the
alder and abet.or OF Fisks frauds, and de-
clared that he ought to be held RESPONSE
BILE to the moral sense Of mankind for
such perverson Of his ability. Mr..
Field replied that he was indignant at
such criticism on his professional ac-
tons, and then pointed to his Obligations
as a lawyer as his best defense. He claims
that as a professional man he was bound
to assist his client in every possible way
With this statement Of the case. il Is to be
hoped that the general reader understands
the differences that exist between Mr..
Bowles and Mr.. Field.
Now. to apply our proposition, which IS
that the Democratic press throughout
the country has attempted to debauch
public sentiment by defending the posi-
| ton assumed 10y Mr.. Field. The editor
declares that a conscientious lawyer IS not
| bound TO Use his superior ability to per
vert the cog.rts from just judgments. Mi
Field atfirms that the genuine lawyer is
bound to use every means within his
power 10 help his client. On this issue
the Democratic papers generally accord
with the lawyer and the Republican
papers, as a general rule, accord with the
editor. We say that the position assumed
by the lawyer and the Democrats is
demoralizing n its effects upon the peo-
DIE and upon the sentiment of the country.
1t is the assertion Of a principle tina. the
strong may Cypress the weak; that the
shrewd may cheat the stupid; and that
the wise may injure the unlettered. And
that in doing this they may use the very
temples that are dedicated 70 Justice as
their engines Of wrong doing. It needs
no argument TO prove this. 4 simple
statement Of the proposition establishes
its truth and nationality.
Mind we are assuming in this argument
that Fisk & Co. are wrong. This is the
position that produced the controversy.
Field never denied this, but set up his
general answer that it was his duty to
employ his entire ability to advance the
lnteres. OF his client. This is tie assump-
ton which We are contestirg, and which
our Democratic friends are defending.
They affirm the right and duty Of the law
yer to defend his case with every means
at his disposal. We say that this theory
demoraGzes lie public, because it popu-
larizes the idea tina. the man OF genius and
ability may commit injustice and oppres-
sion FOR a price. Suppose burglar can
escape by the adroit suppression Of tes-
timony at the hands Of an able lawyer, is
the lawyer justified in suppressing this
evidence # he may release a burglar
in this way for a price, why may not
another DO the same deed by smuggling
file into his cell? If tue lawyer IS allowed
to supply evidence, why may he not i'm
prove i: What IS the difference between
the sapress'o rer; ard the >,tjyeotto ta5si :
And if tie truth can be suppressed OF the
falsehood suggested with such force in.tle
very temple Of justice, what are We to
expec. in abodes that are not clothed with
such purity?
It used 20 be said OF Henry Clay that
he never would consent TO engage in
case which he thought 20 lie clearly
wrong. He gave to applicants for lis
services he benefit Ct any doubts which
he Nigh. entertain, and engaged 20 sap
Dor. .leir cases, but his III. tLod WAS 20
extract the facts as closely as possible and
then submit the cause upon the merits
Is this no. all that lawyers are required 70
do? Or are they employed to win injus-
tee? According as tie reader answers
these two questions he will support either
Mr.. BowIes or NJ. Field. As a general
rule, the Republican papers have limited
the lawyers to the pursuit Of justice, and
as another general rule the Democratic
papers have limited the lawyers TO the
pursuit of success, which We affirm to be
eminently demoralizing. Let the reader
decide for himself.