The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1875-05-20
Our Judges and the Bar.

sTt is custom more honored in the breach
than the observance"
1t is an ungracious task to question the pro-
priety of custom which, in this State, seems
to nave the sanction of time and the practical
approval of the Courts and the Bar. Bat the
custom we have in mind needs, we think, un-
favorable criticism, and we know of none who
may more properly make this criticism than
ourselves, as we arc in political and, to some
extent, personal sympathy with the Judges of
the State.
We refer to the custom of returning thanks
to the Judges for the simple performance of
the duties of their position. We cannot CON
ceive of anything more undigni6ed, and which
to judges and lawyers in their right minds
onght to seem more offensive.
Both in the theory and the practice of the
law, as we understand it, the Bar constitutes
portion of the Court of Justice. The lawyer
Is subject at any time to the animadversion of
:. the Court for failure in the performance of his
duty, and, therefore, the very appearance OF
to Hatter or unduly influence the mind of the
Court should be scrupulously avoided. Again,
it NAV happen that at the close of term, when
a resolution or address of thanks is proposed,
some members of the Bar will think that, leav-
ing the propriety of the thing out of the ques-
tion. the thanks are not deserved. Now, see
the position in which these dissentient lawyers
are placed they must either sacrifice their
convictions and acquiesce in the entire Offering,
or take the chances of being snubbed and OBJ
.sSructed in the pursuit of their professions by
q wsak-minded and malicious Judge, for such
men do sometimes geton the Bench.
We say that none but weak-minded Judge
can be really pleased by such personal and con-
ventional expressions of approval; and we
say, further, that he is the very Judge who
should not receive them. In one Of the upper
circuits, quite recently, vote OF thanks OF
this kind led to q most unpleasant discussion
among the members of the Bar.
We know nothing of the inside history of
these matters, and suppose that where vote of
thanks is given to Judge it is because the
members of the Bar so voting cannot repress
their surprised gratitude at finding that the
Judge, in bis intercourse with them, has been
neither knave, absolute fool or tyrant. We
have been told by lawyers, when discussing
this subject with them, that the Judges fish
for these compliments.
If this is SO, then the action of the Bar in
responding TO such intimaGons is only less
unworthy than that of the Judge who makes
them.
We wish it understood that we have no doubt
chat there are many judges to whom such for
mai thanks are but as the idle wind, leaving no
suppression whatever, except probably, feel
ing of disgust. There are others, however,
who prize these things highly, (because Judges
are human.) and for that they prize them high
ly cannot suppress a feeling of dissatisfaction
with those who fail to unite with them.
The fact is, disguise it as we may, these res
olutions of thanks to the Judges by the Bar
are ucthing but species of bribery. And we
have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty
of the Judges to stop them. The custom has
obtained so long that the failure of the bar to
observe it is Interpreted by sensitive Judge
as dislike of or opposition to him personally,
and so the empty but pernicious sham is per-
Who will be the first Judge to put the seal
of his disapprobation upon it? From very
general conversation with members of the Bar,
we know that they will be delighted to be re.
lieved from what has grown to be hateful
service. We also know that there are Judges
in the State who, now that the matter is called
to their attention in this public manner, will
be prompt to act ii, as we suppose, their judg.
ment comedies with ours as to the character of
the custom.
While we say, who speaks first? we are per-
fectly willing that they all should speak at
once. = Usion- Herald.