The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-07-09
LAWYERS AND PUBLIC OFFICE.
Unreasening Criticism OF Lawyers No.
oauso They Do Their Duty 70 Clients.

oause They Do Their Duty 70 Clients.
To THE Ep1ron OF THn suN-Sir: Recent
upheAvals In commercial and financial mat
tors within tho city have induced unusually
severe criticism Of the legal profession at the
hands Of tho press. The circumstance. Tor
example, that Mr.. James B. Dill. who has
been proclaimed far and wide, whether Justly
or unJustly. 90 the father Of the present trust
system. has been elevated to tho bench In the
State Of New Jersey seems at one ana the
same time to call for more or less Incorporate
denunoiahon and equally Incorporate apol-
ogy. There are those who vehemently aver
that Mr.. Dill has had change Of heart with
respect to the ethical status Of large corporate
aggregations. There are others who think
that Mr.. Dill has built for himself Franken-
stein whose development could not have been
foresesn. Finally. there % large class who
still believe that no lawyer whose professional
Affiliations have brought him In contact with
corporate management and policy can over
fulfl the judicial function openmindedly.
Now, the fact that corporation as legal
person or fictitious entity Is created not by
one lawyer, ten lawyers or thousand law
yers, but by the people themselves, trite ana
common as the saying Is. 10 usually lost sight
Of when the subject Of the elevation to the
bench OF this. that or the other corporation
lawyer arises.
1t is within the memory OF most OF us that
one Of the highest minded. cleanest handed
and purest souled lawyers Of this city failed
Of confirmation by the Senate Of the United
States to the proudest position to which any
lawyer may look forward-a Justiceship OF
the Supreme Court OF the United States-on
the ground that he was q corporation lawyer.
1t may we'll be inquired what lawyer Is better
able to f1ll such a high position than he who
by reason Of his arduous study. painstakins
labor. deep research and familiarity with the
subject OF corpora alton lava creature OF the
people--gives the results Of all this to Its
exposition.
As well might one say that any lawyer. by
reason Of his superior ability. industry. hon
esty and devotion to the interests OF indi-
vidual clients, has disqualified himself for
the Office Of Judge.
The very newspapers which deplore what
they hint to be a venal disposition on the
part OF Mr.. Elihu Root by reason OF his de-
votlon TO the interests Of his clients-some
Of which happen to be corporatlons-by some
curious ethical twist recognize no impro-,
priety whatever In his being relegated. or
advanced, as the case may be. to the high
Office Of the Secretary OF State. All unto In
procls lining Mr.. Root to be man above re-
proach as to everything but his devotion
to his corporate clients; and right here Is the
comic paradox: II Mr.. Root, for example. Is
30 devoted to the interests Of corporations
which may or may not be such a menace to
the public welfare as was described by his
friend Mr.. Roosevelt at Harvard as TO come
within tho designation Of those lawyers de-
scribed by the President. why then should
there be any relief from anxiety as to the
public welfare when Mr.. Root assumes the
head OF the Department OF State?
II Secretary Taft. who has filled judicial
post. finds much to deplore In the admins
tration OF law In this country. does he there
fore, 40 most newspapers would seem to I'M
ply, fix The responsibility solely upon the
legal profession. or does he not rather call
the attention OF the private citizen to his
civic duty?
When Mr.. Jerome. In his geeful fashion.
points with pride to the fact that he has man
q ged to secure indictments against certain
members OF profession. numbering some
does he do more than emphasize a fact as old
as the world. namely. that given a number
Of certain individuals. there are always those
whose moral capabilities are inferior, and
whose moral perceptions are dim?-truly
not matter for faoetious comment. whether
the delinquent be lawyer. doctor or member
Of any other profession.
The profession OF law needs no defense,
and generally speaking. so far from requir-
ing defense, its practitioners are deserving
Of the highest public praise; In the circum-
stances. should there not be less OF loose talk
about their delinauencies. and should not
general criticism give way to specific criti-
cism with facts as basis? l..
NEW York. July 8.