The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1911-12-09
MR.. BARROW AND HIS
M'NAMARA FEE.

AVA ASHAASAhAN[A nGs
II is perhaps an evidence Of the
primitive character and unframed
quality of the lay mind that at times
it experiences difficulty in understand.
ing how the legal profession squares its
heightened professions and protesta-
lions to certain things that lawyers
do. Mr.. Clarence barrow, chief of
counsel for the McNamara brothers at
Los Angeles, has recently afforded an
instance.
MIR. Darrow lives in Chicago. He has
been very active as lawyer close to
and uniformly in sympathy with the
labor movement. He is socialist, and
has had considerable part in Chicago
politics, at one time being candidate
for mayor and making showing which
developed that he possessed tremend.
GUS following outside the ranks of
those who avow association with that
party.
MIR. Darrow arranged for the con.
fessions and pleas of guilty in the Nc
Namara cases. In justification of his
course, he has explained that it was
the only thing to do to save the lives
of the accused men. That means that,
knowing them to be guilty, he consid.
cred that they had better chance to
save their necks if they pleaded guilty,
confessed, and threw themselves on the
mercy of the court, than II they stood
trial Hence the sensational denoue-
ment. ''..
To all this, no objection may be
made. But Mr.. barrow appears for
many months to have, known these
men were guilty. The question that
bothers the layman is how q lawyer, a
sworn officer of the court, under SOL
emn obligation to promote the ends of
justice, can take the case of men whom
ne knows to be guilty, and proceed
with the handling of their case. In
the McNamara instance, attempted
bribery has been most circumstantially
charged. Now, the lawyer in a case
need not be party to bribery, but he can
hardly fail to have his suspicious about
it, The most familiar. case is that of
the corporation claim agent" who
goes out and "sets up the case"-in
brief, gets the witnesses in line, drills
them in their stories, end turns them
over to the lawyer to be put through
their narration on the stand. Is it a
heightened thing; is it within the law
yer's code of ethics, to do that sort of
thingI
In Mr.. Darrow's case, it comes out
that he accepted a $4,000 retainer for
taking charge of the Mcnamara de-
tense. The lay mind is forced to con-
fess inability to understand that. 1t
is big fee, taken apparently for the
purpose of enlisting great talent to de-
feat the ends of justice.
The most innocent laymen under.
stands of course, that every accused
person is entitled to his day and chance
in court; to be represented by counsel,
and to have every lawful right pre-
served and invoked in his behalf. But
when the handling of guilty mans
defense becomes a high financial trans
action; when vast funds are raised
which could not well be employed legi-
timately; when it is matter of
common knowledge that evidence is in
process of manufacture, and that de-
tectives are working up" features,
does it not seem that the lawyer of
high ideals and full sense of his re.
sponsibility as court officer, should
protest and withdraw
Would there not be vastly less per-
jury and manufacture of testimony,
less rottenness in criminal procedure,
less probability of the criminals' es.
cape, less disregard and disrespect for
the law, If lawyers themselves would
frown down all these practices by re-
fusing to take cases, or to remain in
them, when such practices developed 2
The court will always assign coun-
sci to represent the accused. If law
yers would make it part of their
code to retire from rotten cases-cases
in which vicious methods were being
employed, there would be less of that
sort of thing-vastly less.