The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-02-05
When a Lawrer is Rribed.

- $500 "a Ia ~ 1A - IL AOCh-
Rev. DR.. C. 4. Bartol has an article in
the February Forum on Bribery and It's
Near Relatives" which will be read with
good deal Of interest. In the course Of it he
has something to say about lawyers. His
position is that lawyer, being an officer Of
the court, permits himself TO be bribed
when he accepts a fee to advance a cause
which he knows TO be bad, and that it is
question whether he is not bribed when he
takes a fee with the tacit understanding
that it is intended TO prevent him from he
ing retained by the other side.
There are a good many people who agree
with Dr. Bartol, and there is much to be
said in support Of his position, but it is
doubtful if the majority Of those who have
given the subject consideration think as he
does with regard to it, He frankly admits
that he could not convince Chief Justice
Shaw of the correctness Of his position. That
eminent and upright Judge held that 'con-
tending counselors should do their best to
represent or misrepresent, they having
naught to do with absolute equity or truth.
There are unprincipled men in the legal
profession who will not hesitate 10 resort to
unfair means to win a bad cause, but the
number is doubtless much smaller than it is
generally thought to be. Such men are
ithout professional standing. There are
plenty Of lawyers, perhaps majority OF
them, who will undertake cause about the
right of which they are very muchin doubt,
but it is understood that they will resort to
no unfair means to win it. All they agree
to do is to present the strong points OF 1t as
skillfully as they can. Surely, lawyer
cannot be considered as having accepted
bride who takes a fee in a case of this kind.
A great many cases which he think, are
bad may not be. A few days ago an assist
ant district attorney Of New York CITY, re-
fused to argue case before
the Supreme Court Of his State
on the ground that justice was
not on his side. The court decided the case
in his favor. notwithstanding his rather re-
markable position. The lawyer did what
lie thought was right, but it seems he was
mistaken His proper course would have
been to present his cause in the best light he
could. 1t was the courts duty to decide
whether it was a good one or not.
Lawyers get a reputation for taking bad
causes when they do not deserve it. As
general thing they do not inquire into the
moral questions involved in a cause. They
look at it only in its legal aspect When
they are employed in case they aim to
find law to support their side of it, or to
give an Interpretation to the law favorable
to their side. They do just what scientist
does who advocates theory, or theolo-
gian who upholds certain religious doc
trine. They marshal all the arguments they
can in support of their cause.
The lawyers who are defending Jacob
Sharp have been quite severely criticised
for accepting fee from him, and yet the
law presumes he is innocent until he is
proven to be guilty. All his lawyers under
take to do is to see that his cause is tried in
accordance with the law. To defend him is
not wrong, but it would be grave wrong
to leave him without a defense. If he is
guilty it ought to be possible to show it,
however well he may be defended.
1t is doubtful if any lawyer, however ten
der his conscience, feels that, in accepting
fee to take no part in a case on either side,
he has been bribed He isn't supposed to
know anything about the case, and the one
who gives him fee may have right on his
side. He is simply paid not to use his legal
knowledge or his ability in interpreting law
and presenting facts. 1t is straightfor-
ward transaction, and one of which there is
no reason to be ashamed. A lawyer is
bribed when he employs disreputable means
to win his cause, or accepts fee to conceal
facts within his knowledge which are neces-
sary to the cause Of justice.