The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-03-08
THE LAWYERS AND DOCTORS
AND THE PRESS.


critics of the press. E~ch morning
each special pleader, and even the
duller members Of the acute profes-
sion, go through the pleasing task OF
detecting errors OF fact and logic in
the speeches of the journalist. The
latter labors under many disadvantages.
He is paid no fee in any case. He
makes no special preparation TO discuss
any subject. lie takes the day as it
comes, with its incidents and impress
sions, and tells what these are. He
rarely looks backward, consuits no
precedents, finds no mustv tones in
which to delve for forgotten wisdom.
OF books the editor sees but little, and
only consults reviews and compends.
The world moves by steam and light
Aing, and he who keeps pace with it
cannot make up briefs or study the
minute facts or philosophy of current
events. Moreover, while each editor
thinks and speaks for himself, and
without reference to the views of 9th
ere, the bar is not only an association
OF individuals, but an official
organization with great privileges
and great responsibilities. They are,
as held by the Supreme Court Of Ten
nessec, a part of the State government,
and as professional men cannot be
taxed. They not only argue the law,
but shape and interpret the law, and
when we find the profession using its
authority to screen malefactors, to ex-
tend impunitY to plunderers, to rob
the helpless and to ruin those who are
under its protection, every means and
organ of public opinion Is justified in
demanding that the members of the
bar who are opposed to such perversion
OF its high functions shall range them
selves on one side, and leave the sup
porters of legal extertion, corruption
and oppression to stand apart.
The newspaper, on the other hand,
though its mission is not less high and
its possibilities not less grand than
those OF any other secular institution,
is, in point of responsibility, merely
private enterprise, dependent entirely
on public favor, and earning its profits
neither through collusion with judges
nor by extortion from any one. When
it throws its columns open to the di-
vorce lawyer or the legal shyster for
his advertisements, or to the nOstrum
vender, it incurs the same responsible
ity as the house agent who rents an
office to the same Objectionable char
acter. But the judges who know all
the tricks and devices OF the shyster,
tho reputable lawyers who merely
and the bar association which refuses,
under any circumstances or for any Of
tense whatever, to disbar the shyster,
incur a very different responsibility.
Idiocy could not go much further than
in the case OF the New York bar asso-
citation, which not only admits and
tolerates the "divorce shysters," but
calls public attention to its federation
and protection of them in order to in
woke public indignation against the
newspaper, which merely inserts the
advertisement which the shyster pays
for. We cannot make the unworthy
lawyer () take down his signboard on
the street, and until the courts and
lawyers have "disfranchised" him
they must expect to see them nailed to
doorways and fences and to the broad
sides of advertising newspapers. The
folly of the doctor consists in the fact
that he refuses to advertise fairly and
freely, and therefore apremium is prof
cred to cunning, and the ignoramus in
the profession who resorts to the
sharpest dodges prospers most be-
cause unseen by the public he rushes
forward unseen, unknown and un-
discussed. Ignorance has no pro-
lection sgainss his adroit devices
and the quack among doctors
is q greater evil to society than the
shyster among lawyers. Ii both asso-
| Citations used the press more freely and
promoted its success and usefulness
instead of condemnipg and criticising
and thrusting it aside, the virtue and
dignity, an. genuine worth of both
these learned professions would be in
anItely more conspicuous, and the truly
great and learned much more dis
tinctly and widely separated in pep
lar estimation from shysters on the one
hand and quacks on the other. The
time was when the press was coarse,
brutal, denuuciatory, and hardly de-
cent. Then it was that code of eth
les was enacted which, however defensi-
bic in former years when the press
was comparatively impotent and un-
worthy of recognition, is hardly to be
approved when journalism, as pro-
fession, is as worthily pursued by as
intelligent and learned gentlemen as
they who regalo themselves with the
'wit" of Chitty or as those others who
discuss the intellectual excretions of
Dunglinson.
THE LIQUOR CRIuE.