The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-31

Tatuaed 10 recognize the authority or
the serEcant-at-arms, and who had
been fined SIS In Police Court for nom
appearance was sworn He testified
that he IVES not contributor. but
thought his brother had done SO for
the firm.
sburm Ditln't Know Much.
He had heard a. great deal Of talk
about the matter, but proved most
reluctant witness. saying: at don't
pay 10 know too muclt,v fencing away
again and again with tho statement
that he know so little that he wouldn't
like to tell even that Finally. he adj
united that he understood the money
was to be paid the two lawyers "for
passing the bill through" though
whether II was TO SO through the
Board of Health or the Council he did
not know.
He admitted that he came from the
country and knew little OF such mat
fers. but testified that he had fed the
swill for Years, except when the distil.
lery closed down, and he had never been
reported. and that he knew 1t had been
against the law. He assured the COM
mittce that he had meant no disrespect
in not coming before. and the police
Justice wae requested to remit the fine.
City Clerk Ben T. August testified
that at the meeting of the Common
Council on March {, Mr.. Wise got the
dairy ordinance, recommended by the
Board Of Health, from his desk. and
got DR.. Read to introduce 1t under s1s
pension OF the rules. MIR. August said
Mr.. Wise was with DR.. Levy when the
latter brought the ordinance before
the Health Board office previous to the
meeting of the Council. Under the
ordinary course, he said, the ordinance
would have been presented by tho
president as a communication from the
Board of Health and referred to the
Committee on Ordinances, Charter and
Reform
Policeman Louis Kellam, who sum-
moned a number Of dairymen to Mr..
JTolkcss office, told of a conversation
with L. Fl. Kemp, Jr., who remarked
when the summons was presented:. Il
wonder IL it is about the swll business.
think Mr.. Pollock has fixed that
81 said I didn't know what he was
summoned for, and l didn't" said the
witness. He said they had paid Mr..
Pollock to fix IT, but came on with me
TO the commemorative Attorneys office.
Recalls Burton Case.
George Bryan, for four years mem
Der Of the Council and a we'll known
attorney, testified as to the ethics of
the case, concurring largely with the
view Of Judge George L. Christian.
There is no law in this state he
said which makes it illegal for o
member of legislative body. either
State or municipal, to appear as coun-
sci before an administrative board.
either State or municipal. There is an
act of Congress which makes 1t mis-
demeanor for any Senator or Repre-
sentative to appear before national
boards or departments. and prosecu-
tions have been had under that law
both in the Federal courts and before
the two houses OF Congress more than
once, most notably. perhaps. In the
who was convicted of appearing as an
attorney before department in
Washington and sentenced to a prison
term. There is no such State law, so
far as am advised.
AS to the propriety of such a
course think it injudicious. Canon
% of the Code of Ethics of the Bar
Association of Richmond. which is sub
stantlally founded on that of the yir-
ginia and American Bar Associations.
prohibits any attorney from engaging
in a litigation in which there may bn
conflict of interests. 1t would DO
highly improper for an attorney to
represent both the defendant and the
plaintiff in contested case or conflict
ing creditors where there Is contest
as to priority. The code does not men
ton in terms conflict OF interests,
one of which is an official interest, but
it is my opinion that such employ
ment is against that canon. It ap-
preached the danger line too closely.
and 1T is always wise for an attorney
to keep on the safe side"
"Dccllne Fee or Resign"
There was no reason according to
the witness, why a lawyer Council
man should not appear before the
courts even In defense OF clients
charged with violation OF city ordi-
nances where the argument was over
a question of fact. But" said Mr..
Bryan. "he should not accept fee |
that will incapacitate him from per-
forming his legislative duties. ! may
be old-fashioned in my views. but
think they should have declined the
fee or resigned from the Council
Mr.. Lynclp;. asked whether they
they were there as lawyers, not as
Councilmen. and Mr.. Bryan held THAT
DR.. Levy might have naturally as
sumed from the circumstances and
their appearance in the Taylor case in
court that they were not working for
nothing. Mr.. Ratcliffe wanted to know
If be and Mr.. Lynch had gone before
DIR. Levy advocating a matter. would
he have supposed they were receiving
compensation, not being lawyers? The
witness thought not-that 1t was a
part of a Councilnaan's duty to look
after his constituents and present
their cause before the city officers
Mr.. Patterson Concurs.
A W. Patterson, another attorney,
roncurred with Mr.. Bryan in the main.
except as to the distinction between
lawyer and a laynan.
II don't see why DR.. Levy should
have assumed that they were paid" he
said. They might have been acting
as citizens and councilmen. ! think If
they were appearing in the capacity of
attorneys they should have so stated.
There is a section of the code of ethics
which clearly bears on the point. Sec
ton "a says that an attorney may
openly and in his true character render
professional services before boards cons
mittees and similar organizations. but
that 1t is clearly. illegal to conceal his
attorneyship or by secret solicitation to
use means to Influence action think