The Saint Paul globe., 1897-04-25
THE PR1v1LEGEs OF THE RAR

THE PRIVILEGES OF THE BAR.
The privileges enjoyed by that very
ancient and generally honorable pro-
fession which deals with the admins
tration Of and occasional dispens-
ing with justice, are many and val
liable. Naturally it's members guard
them jealously and, where opportunity
offers, are not diffdent in extending
them. Judges, who have been and may
again be practitioners, are moved by
sympathy to Look indulgently on
these privileges and immunities,
and to wink at their expan-
sion. Some Of these are the envy of
the layman. He sits in court during
the progress Of a trial and hears one
lawyer tell another what he thinks of
him in language that, indulged in be-
tween laymen, would lead to blows in
short order, but nothing serious comes
from it, and he is now and then mys-
titled by seeing the belligerents wet
ting their whistles in the most AMIGA
bic manner after the trial. If he is
unfortunate enough to be a witness.
the attorney for the opposite side can
bulldoze him, badger him, insult him
in crOss-examination, berate him as a
perjurer to the jury, and he knows that
he cannot treat him as he would a
fellow layman who would dare to treat
him in like manner. However SANDER
Gus may be the statements made, the
lawyer is immune from slander suits.
Recently a valuable extension of
these privileges was confirmed by the
supreme court Of the state Of Tennes-
see, one which we may expect to see
utilized by the cloth An appellant as
signed as error that defendants coun-
sci, in his closing address to the jury.
moved by the pathos Of his own elo-
quence, burst into a copious flow Of
tears, thereby exciting and affecting
the twelve peers in the box TO such
an extent that they Immediately re-
turned verdict for his client. All
the facts in the case, the Justice of the
appellants cause, law, equity, eyerv-
thing, including, perhaps, a contingent
Zee, were ruthlessly swept away in the
torrent OF tears that flowed from the
lmpassioned advocates eyes. "There-
oy, says the assignment, in dry and
dusty legal phrase, greatly preiudic-
ing the jury against the plaintiff" It
was not that tears were shed before
the jury, for that is an old and favor
lte resort of attorneys with desperata
cases, who dramatically place a. ween-
ing client, wife or widow where their
lachrymal output can be seen by the
jury, but the grievance here was that
the lawyer did the weeping act. fact
that shows conclusiveIy that there was
no woman in the case" for the plain
tiff.
But the court holds the execution
not well taken. 1t can find in al +ba
books no precedent for SUSTAINING -
anu OF course, that cannot be law
winch no court has ever decided TO ba
law. But the court goes farther afia1d
than the musty tones containing nrn-
cedents, and dwelIs on the natural and
lnaIlenable rights of man. Tears if oh
serves, have always been regarded as
legitimate arguments 'It wouId an
pear to be one of the natural rights
or counsel to shed tears which no co,,rt
or constitution can take away." Warm
ing 10 the topic the court boldly enters
the vista of counsellor rights and nriv-
lleges thus opened before it and. from
the doctrine of right it laws down tho
corrolary OF duty; declaring that
II counsel has tears at command II
may be seriously questioned if if is NOT
his professional duty to shed them"
IN his clients cause, unless indeed the
court, with traditional caution adds
they are indulged in to such excess
as to impede the business of the court "
Thus privilege sprouts from privilege
like suckers from cornstaIk. and Law
men pause to wonder where the suc1,-
6ring will end