New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-13
uycU4EL NOL4NS PROFESSIONAL PRIV


ILEGL.
Whatever other people may do, Mr.. Michael
Nolan manifesty intends to maintain the
dignity of the legal profession, and not allow
its privileges TO be encrOached upon. lie Is
member OF that profession. As member OF
the profession he Is understood to be standing
at this moment on his reserved rights, and
pcrsistently refusing to disclose to commit
tee of the Legislature the disposition he made
of q little matter of over one hundred thousand
dollars traced into his possession, as paid
him by certain steamship companies to
procure legislation in their interest. Nolan
has taken considerable time to make up his
mind on this subject, but having made it up
he is firm Not that he wishes to withhold
information from the Committee Far be it
from Nolan to keep back a fact except upon
the very highest ground of professional honor
and from the prOfOundest sense OF what is
due to precedent. With great respect for the
Committee he declined to produce the bank
checks which would show what had been done
with the one hundred and odd thousand dollars.
"My reason" said Michael Nolan. with an
Astounding consciousness III his manner that
in him sacred professional privilege was about
TO be assaulted and time hOnOred precedent
attacked-"m my reason is that think it would
&" be bad precedent if the Committee should
"cxamine into affairs which are private"
Spoken like Michael Nolan and like lobby
ist. Answers like this are on record in a
hundred investig neutrality-suspicious. II thousand.
There was hardly ever an inquiry, Congress
sional or Legislative, into piece of lobbying
that smelt of bribery, in which some ornament
to his profession, like Michael Nolan, did lot
fall back on professional privilege and prece-
dent.
Mr. Nolan, upon being informed that the
Committee would get ut the information
sought in some other way, meckly answered
that he conld not help it; and again assured
the Committee that he had taken this position
purely as a matter of principle, from which he
would not bulge. The Committee manfesting
a disposition to interrOgate HIM further on the
subject of his disbursements, the gentleman
awaited himself again of professional privi-
lcge by refusing to give any further testimony
until his counsel returned from California,
whittier he seems to have departed at about
fifteen minutes notice. So that Mr.. Michael
Nolan, himself lawyer refuses to testify
before the Committee of the Legislature until
ne can nave lawyer 10 dSsIst nlIli, anu
the latter having just started somewhat abruptly
for California, he proposes to keep the Com
mittee waiting till he returns. Even then Mr..
Nolan does not propose to inform the Com
mittee what disposition he made of the one
hundred and odd thousand dollars which there
is every reason to suppose was either used for
purposes of bribery or paid to Mr.. Nolan under
the suppOsiiOn that it would be so used.
"There's principle in this matter" says Mr..
Michael Nolan cit would be bad precedent,
81 think, for the Committee to inquire into
"affairs which are private" All, indeed! And
what is the principle, pray, in receiving one
hundred thousand dollars for procuring the
passage of special act to which there was
no opposition, and which was never discussed 7
Was it worth it How Here's the question
of principle, Mr.. Nolan. Did you take 81 900
for your own services in this matterf if so,
what were theyi Did you pay any one else !
if so, whOm7 That is all the question of prn-
ciple you need bother your conscience with.
And as for establishing bad precedcnts
by inquiring into private matters, there's
much more danger of bad prccedents in per-
hitting twO-pencc-h a'-pcnny lawyers to take
from large corporations a hundred thousand
dollars at a time for the purposc Of influence