, 1879-02-09

One wholesome result of the B1oDGET7
Investigation viii be the breaking up in thi:
| community Of that profession known as
ssfriends of the Court" That investigation
has shown that such profession is fraud,
M outrage upon the Judiciary, a rank ICON
! fdence business, and as immoral rs it is
| disgracefut. There have been great efforts
made by the Legislature and by society gen.
orally to degrade and punish every lawyer
| who engages in the reprehensible business Of
! procuring divorces without publicity, and
even without proof or residence Of either
party. That is considered to bo not only so
low n business as to justify the Courts dis
barring those engaged in it, but especially
diseraceful because chenp and nesty. The
practice Of pretending to exercise "int|u-
ence with the Court, aud Of taking feos On
the score OF being Ill "ilitimate friend y of
the Judge, is not only Els disreputable and as
dishonest rs that of the divorce-shysters,
but infinitely more denoralizipg.
It may be assumed TINT, in ninety-nine
cases out of n hundred, money taken rs q
fee. because Of supposed influential Intimacy
with a Judge is rank ,roobery,-a confidence
game that should entitle the recipient to So
cial and legal degradation. As n rule, such
intimacy OF influence with the Judge never
exists. The mnu who pockets the money
mover approaches the Court III the way ex-
pected, aud dnro not do SO; but be takes the
money all the same, and sw1ndlos the anxious
victim. That such practice exists cannot
be doubted; TINT money, and in largo sums,
has been pMd fer such supposed back-stairs
service, Is no secret; and we will not do
Judge of any court in this city tho injustice
Of assuming that such service has ayailed
litigant, or that Judge was aware that any
attorney Was practicing on supposed per-
sonal influence with him.
The fact that such men exist tends more
than aught else to create IN impression IN
many minds that money is potential in con-
trolling Judicial results, and thereby propn-
gates the idea that he who can pay the most |
can gaiu the most in court. All this is a
most positive injury to the courts, aud
operates us an unjust aud uudeserved re-
proach to the Judiciary. 1t is common !
thing in Municipal Governments for legis1a-
tive brokers' to furnish lists Of members I
whose votes can be secured for or against |
It often happens that names arc
included Of members wholly unconscious
that their votes are sold, aud who would |
resent such IN act in the most de-
cided manner if they were aware OF it. /
These professionals who take money for sup-
posed private influence with Judgesare guilty
Of greater scoundrelism than those who
sell lists Of votes in City Councils. Their
baseness is doubly infamous, because, in ad-
1ition to its own infamy, it is shameless
libel on the Court.
The recent investigation should have the
affect Of breaking up this business. No man
IAN have read the proceedings without being
satisfied that to pay money for private infu~
,nce with q Court is to submit to shameless,
1isgraceful robbery; and that the attorney
who will hold out the pretense that be can
id suitor by private influence with tho
fudge is a scoundrel who will sell to both
;ides, and is in oil reasonable probability IN
lrrant impostor. Hereafter the man who
'ays money for such service must do SO with
be full knowledge that he is a fool, victim
ya3 hu a nhant