San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1886-09-30
A Reform In the Methods and Manners
OF the Legal Profession Suggested.

We are happy to say that no maj
: OF our ago perhaps ever had less b
: do with tho courts than have We, a
least for great many years. 1t i
true, when young man we pursued
tho regular course OF legal study, ant
; we're admitted to practice; but con
! stitutional and growing dislike FOL
|. tho business, combined with over
: mastering literary tastes, prevented
our entering upon the practice to any
) considerable extent While We found
the study improving, and in some Of
it's departments elevating, We found
the average practice anything but
congenial 10 man OF refined taste OF
a high standard of integrity. One OF
tho least attractive places, save on
rare occasions, that we can conceive
of is the average court room, hence
we have spent very little time there
We have been 80 fortunate as never
TO have been called rs a witness
probably half a dozen times in our
life, and never at all to serve as n
Juror. Nevertheless we have had oc-
casion to take some observations as TO
the manner in which legal business is
conducted, especially by tho lawyers,
which have suggested this article.
We feel sure there IS great need OF
improvement in this department OF
public business. The original and
proper design Of lawyers was to aid
in the administration of justice, and
not, as it is too often the case now,to
pervert and bewilder it. They were
intended to aid the court with sug-
gestions as to the law, and secure a
fair and full presentation of the evil
dence in each case, in the interest OF
their clients. There their duty to-
wards him ended. But how is it now?
Who does not know that the present
style of practice is conducted to a
large extent upon the principle OF
throwing doubt upon the clearest
testimony in order to defeat the ends
of justice' The great point with
lawyers now appears to be to gain
their case, regardless OF the means
by which they may attain that end.
They seek to discredit the witnesses
whose testimony stands in their way,
however truthful, in the most I'M
scrupulous manner, while they exalt
those on their own side, however
worthless and unreliable. They
brow-beat or bulldoze timid or I'M
sophisticated witnesses who are hon
estly and earnestly trying to tell the
truth, they confuse and wind them up
till they cannot tell what they. know
in an intelligent manner, and then in
the argument before the jury, insist
that such embarrassment is evidence
of the dishonesty and untruthfulness
of said witnesses. Who does not
know that the general staple OF the
speeches of lawyers before juries is
to traduce and villify the opposite
party and his witnesses, and pervert
all the evidence so as to help out their
case? Such is especially the case in
criminal practice. No matter how
great the criminal, or how notorious
his guilt, his lawyers move heaven
and earth for his acquittal, regard
less of the interests of the community
Such, as everybody knows, is tie
general style of lawyers. Surely no
one will assume to say that such was
the original and true mission of the
profession.
But it may be asked, What is the
for this state of things? 1t
is difficult to say. AS regards the
brow-beating of witnesses and whole
sale abuse of parties and witnesses in
the argument, and in general the vile
pettifoggery which distinguishes
the practice, we should say that
Judges as in duty bound should firm
ly and sternly rebuke and rule out
such practices and hold attorneys in
court to the rules of common cour-
tesy which mark the intercourse OF |
elsewhere. We say fur
Their that witnesses, jurors and others
who are required to be present in
court, have equal rights there with
lawyers. Judges and lawyers are
entitled to credit for acting well their
parts, precisely as other people, in
whatever humber sphere, neither
more nor less. No special privileges
belong to them-all pretensions of
superiority aside from their good con-
duct is mere assumption.