The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1886-03-09
Lawyers and Law-Makers.

just one hundred years ago, in l7s6, there
was an amusing controversy in Massachusetts
over the grave question whether lawyers were
benefit or an injury to the community 1t
was not simple debate, which was to lead
to nothing. Many people were, in fact, great
ly excited over the question, and some of the
Massachusetts towns voted to instruct their
representatives in the Legislature TO pass an
act abOlishing "the order of lawyers"
One proposition was to limit the number Of
lawyers in the State to twenty-five, and to
have them elected by the people. 1t was also
suggested that no member of the profession
should be elected to the Legislature: for it
was charged that they swarmed in the House
of Representatives, and exercised a sort Of
autocratic power in framing the laws upon
the execution of which they were to fatten.
AS matter of fact, there were then less
than ninety lawyers in the whole State; and
there were only fifteen members of the profess
sion in the House of Representatives, of which
they formed one-sixteenth part. 1t was there
fore high compliment to their talents to say
that they ruled the Legislature.
There has always been, and there is now, a
popular feeling that our national and State
Legislatures contain too large proportion OF
lawyers. If it be an evil, it is greater to-day
tions in Congress from some even of the large
States, which are almost exclusively COM
posed Of lawyers. Massachusetts, for exam
pie, sends almost as many members of the
profession to represent her in Washington as
she put a century ago, into her own Legis-
lature.
The proportion in Congress, of which moro
| than two-thirds are lawyers, is much larger
than it is in the British Parliament The
House of Commons lately elected contains one
hundred and ten barristers and tweDty-three
solicitors The two branches of the legal
profession thus furnish almost exactly one
fifth of all the members. Yet even this Is a
larger proportion than is contributed by any
other profession or calling.
1t appears, then, that whatever objections
there may be to lawyers as law-makcrs, the
people generallyattach but little Importance 10
them. We must conclude that experience
shows the members of this profession to be
peculiarly fitted by their mental training for
Legislative duties.
No doubt familiarity with practical bust
ness is useful to member Of Congress; but
even in this respect the merchants knowledge
is apt to be more narrow in its scope, though
it may be moro thorough, so far as it extends,
than the lawyers 1t will be found, on look
ing through our political history, that almost
every statesman of the first rank, whether
President, Senator, Representative, or Cabinet
Minister, was a lawyer or an editor. Even
Andrew jackson was judge before he was
a general.
Beginning with the year 1850, the Repub-
lican and Democratic parties have had in all
twenty-seven candidates for President and
Vice-President. Nineteen of them were law
years, three were editors, and four were gen.
erals General Grant is the only person not
a lawyer who has occupied the chair of the
President since General Taylor died, in 1850.
1t is mistake to think that any consider
able part of the laws passed by Legislature
belongs TO the class OF laws which make cases
for the courts, and bring fees to members of
the legal profession. 1t is a Islander upon the
lawyers who sit in our Legislatures to say
that they favor bills which will increase the
number of suits, or the cost of litigation
The truth is, that great legal reforms have
are not only suggested by lawyers, but find in
the profession their most intelligent and effic-
ent advocates. a Legislature wholly CON-
posed of lawyers no State should have, of
course. But it is well that this calling fur
nishes usually the largest contingent to our
law-making bodies.-Erchage.