The Paducah daily sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1896-1898, 1897-11-18
A QUESTION IN LAW.

w 10 ivan tN LIN W.
An incident which happened in
connection with the trial of Martin
Thorn, in Long Island City, the 9th.
er day, for the murder Of William
Guldensuppe, has raised a very inter
esting question regarding the ethical
duty, under certain circumstances, OF
a lawyer who may lie the counsel for
q murderer.
Thorn was jointly indicted with
Mrs. Augusta Mack for the killing
and ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF Guldcnsuppe,
whose remains were scattered pro-
miscuously about New York City and
the waters adjacent thereunto. The
state elected to try Thorn first, aud
he was, and still is, represented by
Mr.. Howe, q somewhat celebrated
and decidedly spectacular criminal
lawyer OF New York City. Mrs.
Nack's counsel wa, and is, Emanuel
Friend, also Of New York.
Now, the uneasy conscience OF
Mrs. Mack, aided perhaps by her fear
Of conviction il she remained silent,
proved too much for her, and she
confessed to Lawyer Friend, her at
torney, giving him the whole story OF
the atrocious butchery, he having
ing previously advised her to confess
il she were guilty. Lawyer Friend
then notified the District Attorney OF
his clients confession, aud Mrs. Mack
went upon the stand as witness
against Thorn, and declared that they
were jointly guilty Of Guldensuppe's
murder.
Lawyer Howe thereupon declared
that Lawyer Friends action in per-
hitting Mrs. Mack to confess in court
was a betrayal Of his duty toward his
client, and he (Howc) Furthermore
declared and thanked God that, in s
practice of thirty. five years, he hat
"neyer permitted a client to confess
unless direct evidence existed agains
him."
The Cincinnati Commercial-Tri
bune recounts the above facts ant
tlen propou1ds.the following quos.
| ton:
did Lawyer Friend, knowing hi
client to be guilty, do right or wrong
in allowing her tn confess to her
crime?"
Lawyer Friend, in allowing hi;
client to confess, recognized the rela
ton he bears both to his client and
society. This relationship is very
delicate one and one that seems Of
tentimes totally to be misunderstood
by the lawyers. 1t is really the
provise Of the lawyer to see that hi:
client has the benefit Of all doubt:
arising from tue evidence and the
benefits Of as liberal Interpretation OF
the law as possible. 1t i. not his
duty to proclaim the innocence OF his
client and cndeavor to have him set
free whatever the evidence in the case
may be. A lawyer has a duty to
perform towards society as well as
his client. In general, however, a
lawyer must retain his case even il lie
becomes convinced that his client is
guilty. BY throwing up the case OF
by expofIng his client he would he
acting as final judge. when the law
says every man is entitled TO a trial
by a jury OF his peers; Furthermore,
the confessions OF a client are conf
dental, and must be so considered
unless the client wishes them made
public. In this case Mrs. Mack re-
leased her lawyer from the silence en-
joined by the ethics OF the profession.
His duty then to society at once
compelled him to act as he did. We
believe that his course will be APP
proved by the members Of his profess
sion rather than the customary course
Of Lawyer Howe as stated by him