The San Francisco call., 1898-03-19

newspaper reporter, and that he informed | his counsel thereof, he suggesting to them | that he could obtain a large sum of | money by consenting to, make such confession" Thereupon his counsel con- suited relative to the proposition. It ap- pears that one of his counsel, w. H. | Schooler, immediately rejected the propo- sition and suggested to his associates the | impropriety of it and the injury which appears that R. l.. Simpson, another of defendants counsel, concurred with the views tb of MT sch9e,er and t is clear to MT Simpson were in any way implicated in the transactions which form the basis Of this proceeding, and the court fully exonerates them from any complicity therein. Not so, however, as to MT. Me lntosh, the respondent here. He (McIn- matter from his mind On the contrary, on several occasions he mentioned the subject to his associate, MT. Mcintosh suggesting on such occasions that should the defendant make such confession it could not be used against him on the trial. and if it could, the defense of in- sanity could be manufactured; even going so far as to suggest to his associate, who was engaged in examining jurors on their defense of insanity Upon each of such occasions Mir. Schooer persisted in the sultation upon the subject. The advice of MT. Schooler was not, however. ac cepted by MT. Mcintosh, for the evidence shows that another attorney, named Ed gar B. Raymond, occupied the same of- ice with him, and he evidently consulted with Raymond upon the subject and the latter volunteered to act as middleman and negotiate the sale to public jour nal of the confession, if procured from his client by Mcintosh.
 The evidence shows beyond doubt, to my mind, that Mcintosh accepted the offer of Raymond and the two thereafter acted in concert, expecting to reap pc cunary benefit from the sale of So- called confession, either obtained or to be obtained by Mcintosh from his client. It as to whether Mcintosh ever stated that he had such confession, he swearing that he never made such statement and the witness Corners swearing that he did make it. Corners testimony Is corrob- orated, however, by the conversation had by Mcintosh with Schooler, wherein he tion with Raymond, and further by the note which the testimony of three wit nesses shows h to haye @ been ,ss sent by Con Con no necessity for such note and no mean ing thereto had not Mcintosh told Con- ners that he. instead of Raymond, then had the confession.
 From all the evidence I am satisfied that Raymond and Mcintosh were acting 1ntosh, in an endeavor to sell, and that they did offer to sell, to a public jour obtained or to be obtained from the client or Mcintosh, who, at the time, was on trial for his life in this court. and jury being secured from citizens among whom such journal would have been distributed. Mcintosh and Raymond are both of them attorneys at law, licensed and admitted to practice law in all of the courts of this State, and officers of this court, one of them being at the time actually engaged fb in 'n1s court bs m the trial Tor m mqbrder tb Of for which he was being here tried, the bartering was being conducted, and that. too, at time when part only of the jury which was to try said cause had been secured and when some jurors were yet to be selected from citizens among " am T1l lat a6 tcn fnG- sion" should be distributed.
 Had the defendant made an honest con ed by many learned in the law that 1t would have been the duty of such counsel, as an officer of the court, to report the same to the court; certainly it was vio- lation of his duty to reveal it to the world and thereby compel the setting up of false defense. for the exception vision of the statute defining the duties of an attorney does not permit or author fense or proceed to establish innocence by false testimony when guilt has been confessed by his client.
 If the confession" was on1 which | counsel knew to be a false statement or if there was none in existence or to be produced, then counsel would be en- of obtaining money by false pretenseS, thereby bringing the tribunal of which they are officers into contempt and les sening its integrity and the respect due to it.
 Aside from lne fact that the acts com plained of show the respondent to have violated his duty as an attorney, in main taining the dignity and respect due to Courts of Justice, they likewise show gross interference with the proceedings of the court and the administration of justice. Such acts had direct tendency to injure the de1endant on trial and to feat the ends of justice.
 If counsel have the right for the pur- pose of lining their pockets and securing a fee for services rendered to a client, to induce their client to make false con- fession for publication and thereby either prejudice the minds of jurors trying, or to try, the question of such clients guilt or innocence, or Co compel counsel to abandon a legitimate defense and manu- 1 fracture spurious one, the profession of the law should be abolished The law is an honoraD4e profession, and those ad- mitted to its ranks should be, and main tain themselves as, honorable members of an honorable profession.
 Courts, not newspapers, are established
 for the trial of causes, and no one should know this better than attorneys, who are l officers of the courts.
 Those who contemplated the act of pub | fishing the so-calied confession failed to consummate their purpose. Although the court, it does not relieve the attor- neys who, officers of the court, en- tered into a conspiracy to commit such act and who were guilty of overt acts in furtherance thereof Had the contem- nlated act been conSummated and a tconfession" of the defendant published in a public journal during the progress of this trial, whether such confession were true or false, ana had a copy of such |. newspaper reached the eye of any juror sworn in this case or any citizen drawn