Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1904-10-21
The Law and the Lawyers.

The Law and the Lawyers.
In trying to locate the blame for the
generally recognized spirit Of lawless-
ness which prevails throughout South
Carolina, and which finds such fire.
auent expression in acts Of the most
outrageous mob violence, many more
or less superficial thinkers are dis
posed to charge it up to the lawyers
and look no further.
While the idea Of the responsibility
of the lawyers has good foundation In
fact we must not stop there. OF
course, IL it is a scape goat we are
looking for, the lawyers will serve as
we'll as any other. But this matter
must not be laid on scape goat. 1t
is too grave, and the result OF such
a disposition would only be to de-
ceive ourselves, without approaching
any nearer to remedy than we have
been all the while.
Theoretically the Office of the law
yer Is to see that the law Is enforced
in Justice and in truth. His duty to
his client requires him to see that
said client gets exactly that to which
he may be entitled under the law, nc
more and no less. He is not supposed
to know whether his clients claims
are Just or not. nor is he supposed to
be concerned about this matter
Whether acting as advocate or coun-
sellor, it is his business to apply the
law to the facts as he finds them, and
leave the consequences to the law
But practically, it must not be assum-
ed that lawyers always do this. AS
matter Of fact few Of them take this
view of their duties and responsibiii-
ties.
In criminal. procedure the rule OF
the lawyer seems to be to put him.
self In the shoes of his client, and
to the best Of his ability use his
knowledge of the law to shield that
client from the consequences OF the
crimes Of which he may be guilty
The lawyer for the defense looks upon
the lawyer for the prosecution as pur-
suing exactly the same policy on the
other side, and within certain wide
limits each justifies himself accord
ingly. The natural consequence OF
such an attitude, in the premises
ought to be obvious.
It will not do to take lawyer
pleading a case before jury too SER
iously. We are sorry to say 1t; but II
is a fact. Pleading before judge
however, he may be taken with all Sc
riousness. It is not difficult to tell
the reason. The judge Is supposed 10
know the law, and will not listen TO a
misstatement or misconstruction. The
Jury, which has discretion as to facts
only, and very wide discretion at that
Is not generally assumed to have de-
cided convictions as to its duty. Un-
der these circumstances, where a mis-
statement of law would meet prompt
and severe rebuke from the judge,
the Jury, led by shrewd, adroit but
questionable play on its feehngs'
would receive with favor the same
kind of a misstatement of facts or
discoloration of circumstances. The
line at which the judge should inter-
fere here is vaguely drawn and where
the lawyer on the other side Is un-
able to bring to bear exactly the same
amount of craft and cunning, the law
is apt to suffer.
All these things we recognize as
facts, and we feel quite sure thai
most of our readers, including the
lawyers, those who are recreant, as
well as those who are not, will agree
with us. But still this does not throw
all the blame and responsibility on the
lawyers. If ell lawyers recognized the
ethics that are theoretically represent
ed as their standard, there would be
little trouble; but lawyers are human
like the rest of us, and since they will
not change their methods so long as
those methods are successful we will
have to look further for the remedy,
and the only remedy that suggests It
self is to be found in the jury box.
For the juror to rise superior to the
wiles Of the foxy lawyer Is more easily
talked about than accomplished. The
average juror may be determined to
do so, but he Is often unwittingly de-
ceived. 1t is easy enough for a juror
to say that he pays no attention to
the lawyers; but that Is not true. If
1t were true it would not be to the ju-
rors credit; because in the arguments
of contending lawyers, leaving out
that which is mere craft, there Is al
ways much that Is calculated to lead
to a correct verdict.
But after all, the main thing in the
jury box is broad discrimination and
a determined conscientious purpose to
do right. In the presence Of these
elements, dishonest lawyers ought to
be entitled to everything they are
likely to accomplish.
THE RATTIE NE MIJKDEN