The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-01-05

January 4, 1672.-TLe court met at
II A. NJ. judges Bond and Bryan on
the bench.
hfr. Characteristic replied 70 the IN.
swer OF Col. McMaster to the rule to
show cause why his name should not be
stricken from tue roll of attorneys in the
United States Court for coptemps, and
the argument thereon, made by r. w.
Fickling, Esq, yesterday. He said ho
did not conceive himself as appearing as
an advocate in the case. and felt conf.
dent TINT all who knew him would
aequit him of being prompted by any
spirit OF acrimony or personal dislike
against the gentleman upon whom the
rule had boen served, for he entertained
no other feelings towards him but those
Of kindness and respect. It was no
1 grateful task to him. and was performed
simply as o discharge Of official duty.
The facts of the case, Mr.. Chamberlain
then wont on to say, are not disputed.
The court inquired OF Mr. McMaster
If he knew, the whereabouts Of his client,
DR.. Avery; 60 which Dir. McMaster re-
fused to reply. Tho court then inquired
OF MIR. McMMster, if he had held any
communication with his client, relative
to his departure, before his absence;
which inquiry also Mr. MoMaster refused
to answer, and the court has ruled that
he show cause why his name should not
be stricken from the rolls OF attorneys of
this court, for the contempt committed
by such refusal. It is now held, said
the speaker. by the counsel for the
respondent, that the mere refusal to an
swer the inquiries Of the court was no
proof OF Mr. McMaster's compiioity in
or knowledge of the escape of his client,
and That evidence diiunde must be ad-
duced to sustain such charge But to
my mind it seems natural and inevita.
bic conclusion, from his declining to
answer, that ho did have some know
ledge Of the whereabouts of DR.. Avery,
and had communicated with him on the
subject of his esonpo prior to his leaving.
1t that be- true--ii Col. McMaster did
have such knowledge, and refused to
disclose it to the court-there appears to
me but one possible ground upon which
he can escape tho punishment threat
ened under tilis rnle of tho court, and
that ground is, that his Information
came in the way OF "a privileged commu-
nication from his client. Wo shonld re-
member now, in tho first place, in view
ing the Question in this aspect, that an
attorney ls an officer of the court. How.
over far our own and popular opinions
may have erred in this regard, we are
always as much officers OF the court. and
concerned in the duo administration of
law and vindlcation OF justice, ns are
your Honors. the Marshal, olcrk, or nny
other servant of the law, aud any dere.
LECTION OF duty OH our part is pnlpable
violation Of law.
There are, it is true, certain commuui-
cations OF client to his attorney, which
the litter ought not, and cannot, dis
close. An attorney may not disclose
any communications which his client
may make to him, for purposes of his
defence. or to obtain ndvicu us to his
legal rights or liabilities. Tho question
is, was the communication OF Dr.. Avery
to Mr. McMaster of this nmture? Mr..
McMaster was DR.. Avery's professional
adviser III his defepoo against u chnrqe
OF violating the Act Of Congress punish
ing conspiracy to interfere with the
privilege OF voting. Can lie in any way
be said to be defending Linn in his pro-
fesslonal capacity. when he colludes,
aids, or advises him in escaping from
the very tribunal before which he has
been engaged to defend him? The privi-
leges OF the relations Of client to his
attorney are indeed very broad; but they
mover conflict with tho attorneys duty
to the court. They mny cover, as Green
leaf lays 1t down, every communication
made to- obtain professional uid and ad-
vice. as to tho rights aud legal liabilities
OF the cliont, what defence is to be
made, what evidence is to be introduced
or excluded, or what considerations are
to be addressed to the court; but surely
it could never be intended that such aid
and advice as an attorney may give his
client under tho bonds Of professional
secrecy, includes, ms is claimed here, aid
anu advice to client to escape from tho
very position i'll which his attorney has
professionally engaged to defend him
Such counsel as TINT to client shows
that the hour of professional advice has
passed; that the attorney has exhaucted
all the means TINT his skill, experience.
oriipgenuity could suggest rs legal de-
fence, nnd he bids his client look now to
his own safety. Ono of tho grounds of
exception given by Greenlcnf to these
privileged communications from clont
to his attorney. ID where n communities
tion. though given to an attorney while
engaged professionally, has no reference
to the execution or performance of a
professional duty. This is precisely the
case here. It was communication from
DR.. Avery seeking advice in an attempt
to net in defiance of the court, and to
escape beyond the reach OF Justice.
Only tho Just aud legal rights of DR..
avery were in the keeping Of Mr..
MoMaster, which rights were those of a
fair trial. the cross examination of Wit.
nessss. the production Of testimony in .
his own behalf. and ull the other Incl.
dents OF properly conducted judicial
investigations; but they do not extond to
ON evasion of the operations of the law,
or the defeating tia ends of justico; and
il the conduct OF DR.. Avery has beon IN
evasion OF tho operation Of tho law, or
defeat OF tho ends of justice, then Mr..