The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-01-05
Or its integrity impaired l.. :.:s s!:s....ss:

or It's integrity impaired :a :!;o s!:g.:..sss:.
degree. p
Nov. may it please your Honors, this
argument hos oil been based upon the
hypothesis that tho respondent, Col.
McEIaster, did know OF Ills clients
whereabouts; and that he knew of them
from information coDfidentially reposed
In him by his client. And we think that
even upon this supposition lie was fully
warranted in not answering. II he was
not warranted, i'll the opinion Of the
court, was he not excusable for believing
that ho should keep his clients secrets?
Had he not abundant authority for be.
Loving soP Aud, 80 believing, aud 80 re-
fusing, has ho been guilty Of such con.
tempt ss will cause him to be .'strioken
from the roll of att0rneysp" Hes he
been guilty OF any contempt Mt all? May
1t please your Honors, il was a delicate
position for the respondent. Tut your
selves, any OF you, gentlemen of the bar.
''put yourselves in his place" II your
client had entrusted to you secrets. per.
haps, before you were aware OF the M
ture of the communication, wonld You
have disclosed them? Will you, in the
future? For myself, I answer that il
ever am to be stricken from the roll, I
hope and pray it may be for just such
cause as this; where an honest, upright
and brave man had rather sacrifice him
self, If need be, than forsake or provo
false to his client.
The second cause for contempt is that
the said MoMaster ''refused to state to
the court whether he had any communi-
cation with said Avery, This client }
touching his absence, prior to his de-.
parture." The whole argument that
applies to one question will apply to the
other. II Mr.. McMaster had any COM
munication with his client, it was privi-
legged; and if it was privileged, the attor-
ney was warranted in refusing TO dis
close it. He was warranted in refusing.
"even 1t the interests of criminal Justice
seemed to demand it," He was forbid
den to disclose it by law, and would
have been in contempt. if he did so.
He would or should have been .sstricken
from the rolls" for so doing. And he
ought to have been, had he done go.
But this argument, too. goes upon the
hypothesis that Col McMaster had COM
mnnication with Avery. Suppose he did
not have any communication with Avery
would the mere refusal to answer be any
sufficient ground to ''strike him from tile
roll Argument upon this point need
not be repeated. It was plainly shown
yesterday, by the leading counsel for tue
respondent, that nothing but moral or
professional misconduct would warrant
suoh an exercise of power. But the re-
spondent is not charged with either. He
1s simply called on to answer the rule.
The rule only charges him with contempt
Tor refusal to answer, or to make certain
statements, and threatens to strike him
from tie roll. unless he shows cause for
his refusal. lie has answered the rule.
He has disclaimed any contempt or dis
respect; has shown that he believed he
had right to refuse to answer: has
shown that he could not have been com
PEELED to answer. And he cannot be
stricken from the roll for mere contempt,
even ii the contempt were proven; and
he cannot be stricken from the roll.
under the rule, on any other ground,
because NO other charge is made against
him.
But the prosecution 20 outside the
rule in their effort to convict. They con-
tend that Col. McMaster's refusal to
answer showed his completely in aiding
Avery to escape. In the first place, i. is
denied that there WAS an escape by DR..
Avery. He WAS free to go where he
pleased. He was out on bail. He was
in charge of no officer. There was no
I imprisonment at the time of the escape.
He was set free by the law. Again, Col.
McMaster, neither as an officer nor as an
individual, had him (Dr. Avery in his
custody. and could not be connected
with an escape, if there was no escape.
Again. DR.. Avery was not guilty at that
time of any crime. He was not CON
voted. He was innocent in the ewes of
the law until convicted. He. hos since
been convicted, but may still be ipno-
cent. His counsel may have believed
him, did believe him so, does believe
him so; and 30 believing, could not.
even II upon trial, be convicted, unless
it were proved that he was aiding crimi-
nal.
NO atfdevlts are necessary to prove
Col. McMaster's respectability. He has
Hcted throughout this whole matter as
became an honorable man and q worthy
attorney of this court. He has nothing
to blush for, nothing to regret, nothing
to retract He can we'll say, with Luther,
when called on to recant before the Diet
OF Worms, 81 cannot and may not re-
cant, because it is neither safe nor we'll
advised to aot in any way against con-
science. Here I stand. Gold help me.
cannot do otherwise"
PoLTIcAL CHRssMEN.-At the exhibi.
tion of the Art Association of Munich
there Was displayed curious set of
chessmen. carved by an eminent sculp-
tor. The principal pieces represent, in
figure and face, the leading characters of
France and Germany. Tho rival kings
are the Emperors William and Napo.
loon III, and the queens are the I'm.
presses Augusta and Engenie. The
other principal pieces arc statuettes of