New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-06-17
Mr.. RoBINsoN's DIsBARMENT
Former Metropolitan Attorney Pro-
tests Against Comments on His Case.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: I must protest with all the energy
Of which am capable against your wholly
unwarTanted editorial in to-day's issue upon
the decision Of the Appellate Division in my
case. The charges made against me by the
Bar Association did not contain the least
accusation OF the crimes or practices you
mention. ! vainly tried to have the prose
cution formulate some specific charge OF an
offence which could meet, but all they
were willing 10 allege was approval Of
vouchers for improper payments" for diff
ferent purposes, ten In number-vi2.. On
for defendants witnesses. 90 for plaintiffs
witnesses. 90 for plaintiffs attorneys. 90
to court officers. clerks and attendants, 90
for keeping witnesses away. 90 20 or for
police. ca for physicians Of plaintiffs, 90
I'm preparing cases for trial, 90 for Jurors
and G0) for disbursements 81 large amounts
without reasonable or satisfactory evidence
that the payments were for proper pur-
poses.
The referee before whom the case was
tried dismissed six (6) of those charges on
the ground that they were not sustained.
The dismissed charges were those relating
10 (D defendants witnesses CD plaintiffs
attorneys, 90 keeping witnesses away. CD
for physicians OF plaintiffs. 90 preparing
cases for trial and 90 for Jurors You
will therefore see that no charge for Jury
fixing" was sustained nor for "subornation
OF perjury" nor was any suggestion that
such crimes had been committed made by
tho Bar Association. There was no sug-
gestlon Of "tamperlng with the processes
Of la hot h.
fraud and crime
What the referee disapproved was o. i'm
proper payments for plaintiffs witnesses. Cd
improper payments for court officers, clerks
and attendants. 90 improper payments to or
for police and GO) approving disbursements
II large amounts without reasonable or
satisfactory evidence that the payments
were for proper purposes Now. the issue In
the case was this: Were the payments so
made improper? ! contended that they
were not. There was no suggestion OF any
"crlme" or fraud" In any OF the findings.
Simply tho question whether under the
rules OF professional legal ethics /. acting
as the attorney OF railroad company, de-
actions for damages Uhe suits rose from
actions being in good number OF cases
merely STRIKES" was justified I'm giving
the detectives employed by tho company
free hand IN getting at the facts IN each
case? When the detective heard of an al
legged witness Of an accident he sought
that witness and interviewed him II pos
sble
The witness was interviewed as to wheth-
er he was supposed to he friendly 10 thu
plaintiff or not This f. what 1 suppose
you refer To az "tampcring with an op-
poncnts witness I'm order 10 properly pre-
pare for trial" The textbooks on profess
slonal ethics prescribe it as part Of law
yer's duty to ascertain the strength of tho
case against him By seeking to learn what
the witnesses on the other side Will testify
TO- His opponent has no property right in
a witnesses testimony. 1t belongs to both
parties. The Appellate Division takes ju
dicial notice OF the experience that perjury
and fraud are connected with personal in
Jury cases and that so far IL seems to have
been impossible 10 devise any effective
method by which witnesses committing the
most evident perjury or those engaged I'm
inducing such witnesses 10 commit per-
jury can be made accountable. | believe
II will be found harder yet 10 punish those
crimes If the lawyers whose duty It IS 10
detect and defeat them are disbarred for
such Interfering with the adyersarX's wit
nesses."
As To the other and minor charges, not n
voucher was approved by me which I did
not assure myself by the aid OF the as
sistants furnished mo Ey the railway COM
pany was for proper purposes, 1t will OK
tend this letter unduly To take them up
I'm detail. have briefly referred to the one
which you seem to have I'm mind. The Ian
guage or style of the detectives voucher is
immaterlal. The substantial fact Is juSt
as | have given It. ! cannot express what
my feelings are at having a decision OF
'unHtness" brought against me after having
for so many years faithfully and conS'i-
entiously tried to defend my client by oil
legal methods Very respectfully,
HENRY a. ROBINSON.
New York. June 10, 1872
THE Tribune's comments concerning
FURY fixing" "subornation of perjury
and "tampering with the processes OF
the courts" were based on the opinion
OF the Appellate Division. which points
out that among the vouchers OF the rail-
way company were accounts for Tex
penses with jurors" expense with Sec