New-York tribune., 1885-03-19
would surely bring about some international
agreement, which otherwise seems impossible.
4 QUESTION IN LEGAL ETHICS

When the account of the purchase by General
Barnes, Sharon's attorney, of an alleged contract
between the attorney of MISS Hill and an expert
witness in the notorious divorceEcase for $2oOoO,
was first received here, THE TRIBUNE expressed
some curiosity to the position OF the racine
Coast Bar Association the transaction Ihat
position has now been made clear. special COM
mittee was appointed to examine and report upon
the case and its conclusions were to the elect that
the action of General Barnes was not immoral, but
was unprofessional 1t was argued by the com
mttee that Z if the purchase of testimony which Is
true Tor believed to be true or documents which
are Tor seem to bel genuine, be legitimate, then the
sale of demand of price for, tho same cannot
be Objectionable on moral grounds" And the COM
mttee held that the recognition OF such doctr'he
would tend to produce perjury and forgery" ana
pointed out that "its danger is forclbly demon
strated in this very transaction" Exactly how the
committee managed to demonstrate that the course
il declared unprofessional was unobiectionabe upon
moral grounds does not seem clear, but that con-
clusion was reached When this report was read
before the Bar Association however it did not meet
the views OF the majority. and after several hours
discussion, during which General Barnes himself
made speech an hour and half long the assocla-
ton by vote of 40 to IL. rejected the report OF
tho committee, and adopted a resolution declaring
that after considering all the facts and circum-
stances which surround General Barnes in the
matter of the Tyler-Gumpel contract this assocla-
tion is of the opinion that he has not been guilty OF
immoral or unprofessOnal conduct
1t is thus formally held by the Bar OF San
Francisco that lawyer is fully justified in
negotiating with the clerk of an attorney engaged
against HIM for the purchase of evidence in the
possession of that rival attorney, and which he must
be aware can only be procured through the basest
treason and dishonesty. If the proposed transaction
is a genuine one. 1t will. however be observed
that the San Francisco Bar Association rather
eyades the natural and full inference from its
action by ntimating that il has been led to this re-
markable conclusion by considering all the facts
and circumstances which surround General Barnes
IN the matter of the Tyler-Gumpel contract" This
may he supposed to mean that the acquIttal is not
based upon a dispassionate Investigation OF the
facts upon which alone adjudication could leRti-
nately rest but that the association had extended
its inquiry so as to cover the whole case. and had
largely been influenced IN its decision by extra
ncOus considerations
Now that the san Francisco Bar has passed upoh
this ethical question, we should like to know how
the Eastern Bar regards it. and this curiosity Is
really in the interest of the public. inasmuch as the
general acceptance of the doctrine laId
down in California on this point would seem to be
fraught with consequences which not only htlgants
but their attorneys must find exceedingly EN-
baIrassing not TO say dangerous.