The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1877-04-27
sHYsrERING LAwYERs.
a Coed DecIsIOn Brings
1AeAUO EIK0.

@CA- - AAAOe
The following will be hailed with
delight by every citizen who has
been 'bled" BY . lawyer. There
are more shysters and dead
beats in that profession than
In any other In proportion to
the number engaged. We have
often wondered why they were not
brought to q stand In their bare-fac-
cd swindling In the prices charged
for their services Every other bu-
siness is regulated, at least to . great
extent, ON the principle Of aVAIue
received" The lawyer has been
left to go for q mans last dollar.
We have meyer seen legislative
body, or any other having authority
to pass upon peoples charges, but
what there were lawyers to raise
their pure hands In holy horroT, and
scream extortiOn. They wanted all
left for themselves. When It comes
to fees, the lawyers, a. q class, are
9 regular set Of vultures. They
have had the courts pretty much
their own way, but we are glad to
record one instance OF their being
brought to time from an unexpec-
ted quarter. We hope the exam.
pie Of Judge Davis will be gener-
ally adopted:
Davis 10 alucky name for Q Judge.
The great Illinoisaa who bore the
mantle 80 manly en- the supreme
bench has made the name synony-
NOUS with large capacity, sagAciouS
foresight, and unerring instinct.
Noah Davis, Of New York, who
ten years age contested the senator
ship with Conkling and came very
near obtaining IL, has been uphold
Ing the go0d fame Of the name by
some unexpectedly rational Jeci-
sions In the New York general
court. It was this Judge Davis
who put An end to the ViciOusly
prevalent practice Of lawyers sit
ting 90 referees In cases involving
legal compensation. He said frank
ly that lawyers were prone to over
estimate the value OF their services,
q remark to which the world will
bear sorrowful witness. No class
Of men are so unequally Overpaid :;
no profession so irresponsible to
clients. A still more admirable
decision was rendered by Judge
Davis apropos Of Q claim for costs
in Q will litigation. The surrogate
Of New York, before whom within
the last twenty-five years will cases
involving one hundred millions
have been argued, has been in the
habit OF extracting the costs from
the funds disposed of in the will
q very strong temptation for the
lawyers on any or no pretext to
dispute all wills. Indeed, this bid
to litigation will account for such
idle attempts a. the recent Wander
fbilt contest, the Lewis dispute, the
Stewart raid, and q score Of simi-
larly inconsequent efforts. Judge
Davis, who has been elected for q
very long term, is the first magis-
trate with sufficient independence
to ny In the faces OF the bar by Q
sweeping reform Of this character
for, contrary to what might natur-
ally be supposed, the men who ben
eht most by these great abuses of
the machinery Of the law, are not
the shysters alone; the greatest
names at the New York bar are
identified with the most whimsical
will contests. Evarts was in the
Vanderbilt case, though It lie only
jast to say that he was fer the de-
tense. The suggestive thing about
these and similar decisions of this
upright magistrate Is not that he
has made them, but that they have
never been made before, and that
the nen professional public have re-
NAMED ct the mercy of legal sharks
so long. 1t is fruitful theme for
popular study. What have our
Judges been about, that vital needs
of this sort have been permitted to
pass unnoted? Are there ne judy
GO Ia this city fearless enough to
emulate this New York Daniel |?
There is abundant scope for cour-
age and enterprise.-Chicago Times.