New-York tribune., 1874-07-22

large proportion Oh WnOIl dIc lawyers Dy pIoicS-
sion, have always exercised the largest latitude
in the acceptance of retaincrs and trial OF
cases, and have never considered that the
functions of the legislator were at all incon-
sistent with the practice of the profession
before courts and juries, and even Legislatures
and Governmental Departments; have never
allowed themselves to think that their rea-
tons to the fountain Of law and sources of
power should be any restriction upon their
professional business. Not until 1894 was there
any limit except the legislators sense of pro-
priety upon his acting as attorney i'll any case
before departments or courts, whoever were
the parties or whatever the case. The law of
1864 explicitly forbade Senators and Representa-
tives from appearing as attorneys in certain
cases. We do not think Senator Conkling has
infringed the letter of this enactment, and we
forcstall the mice of partisan Journalism-wh0
can never understand discussion that does
not rise out of personal motives and proceed
upon grounds of personal favor or hostility
by saying that the Senator has done in this
case only what other Senators of the fairest
fame and strictest integrity have not hesitated
to do. We do not doubt that he discharged
his duty to his clients decorousy and faith
fully, and without violence to his duty of con-
scientous service to the Government.
But here is view of the case well pre-
sented by The Utica Observer, which, as it
seems to us. cannot be omitted i'll any fair
and reasonable consideration of its exDe-
diency or morality. That journal, comment
ing on the case, observes that when Mr..
Conkling went into this case he carried with
him greater political influence than any
other man in the State. He appeared be-
fore Judge whom he had elevated to the
" Bench only few months before. He con-
fronted District-Attorney who could not
"hOld his Office for day if Mr.. Conkllng
"should demand his removal. He secured a
"vcrdct which the jury was forced to render
"by the rulings of the Judge" Every item
in this brief statement is, we believe, true
and fairly presented. 1t is not necessary to
believe that Mr.. Conkling imported into his
conduct of the case any consciousness OF this
power, nor to suppose for moment that he
would, upon any provOcatiOn, use his power
improperly. We may go further, and say
that the great corporation which employed
him mover for moment considered his avail
other light than as a discreet adviser and
able advocate. But what gives tins case sig
nifcance is its very clear presentation of the
large array of temptations to the abuse OF
power, and the great possibilities of injustice
that lie just under the surface of the existing
custom, ready to sprout into noxious
gr0wths whenever the conditions of wicked
ness and weakness in litigant and lawyer
shall favor it.
How far the functions of legislator and law
yer are compatible with each other and with
the successful administration of justice, is a
question we leave Legislatures and Congress
to decide. The common mind fails to compre-
hend the subteties and re6nements upon
which Congress makes up its judgment that
Senators and Representatives can appear in
court or at the departments as paid advocates
for individuals and corporations, and the next
moment divest themselves of the memory of
retainers and the bias of counsel, and upon
the floor of Congress do equal and exact JUS
tice between their clients and the Government
or the people. TO an unprejudiced person
there seems to lie i'll this twO-f0ld relation
such grave temptations and inviting Opportu-
mites to the betrayal of public trust as should
be provided against by wise craftsmanship.
We have already seen that this practice has
opened wide the door to present abuses: it is
not difficult to see that i'll its continuance, with
the materialistic tendency of our politics, great
and serious dangers may be apprchended.
The profession of attorney has come to be the
cloak of a corrupt and cOnscienceless lobby.
Is there no danger that it may becOme-wc
will not say has becOme-the cover under
which legislation may be bought and sold, the
sources of power polluted, and justice put to
shame2 1t would not be difficult task to-
day in many of the States of the Union to lay
the finger on more than one professional person
who has served in the Legislature and charged
" general retainers" to individuals and cOrpOr-
atiOns for whom they never showed their faces
in any court, but whose interests they did
support in the General Court where laws are
supposed to be made for the public welfare.
At the beginning of President Grants first
term powerful corporation in certain New
England State had business before the State
Legislature. There were great many Federal
offices in the State. and with new Admins
traton many changes were expected. Natu-
rally enough majority of the members of the
Legislature, either on their own behalf or for
friends. were interested in the disposal of
these places. The whole patronage was in the
hands of the Administration Congressman, and
they were all lawyers. Is there any suggest
iveness in the fact that they were all retained
by the great corporation, and all active in the
lobby 1t is not necessary in this case either
to believe that there was any improper use of
power on the part of the Congressman, or any
thought of it on the part of their clients. And
yet can anybody consider thoughtfully for a
single moment the combination of circum-