The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-07-21

From the Montreal Star.
A VERY nice question of profession-
"a al ethics has arisen In England
as a by-product of the Marconi
case. Sir Edward Carson and Mr.. F..
E. Smith, X. c., are among the chief
leaders of the Unionist party and are also
among the leaders of the London bar.
In the latter capacity, they were retain
ed by Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Herbert
Samuel as counsel in the libel case
against "Matin" over this Marconi BUSH
ness, and also by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs
in a similar action against Chesterton.
AS lawyers, they were thus compelled
to argue in favor of the men deepest IN
the Marconi affair. while, as politicians,
it was presumed that they stood with
their party in condemning these men.
AS a consequence of this dual position,
they abstaned both from speaking and
voting on the subject in the House of
Commons
Naturally a discussion has arisen
over the whole episode. Were they JUS
titled in taking briefs" which practi-
cally debarred them from performing
their duty as members of Parliament?
Should they have refused these
| briefs? Would they not have been
thereby breaking the rule that coun-
sci is bound to take up any case--not
altogether outrageous-which is pre-
sented to him? Could they not have
pleaded that they were arguing merely
as lawyers in the courts, and so should
be free to speak as citizens and public
representatives in Parliament? They
have been criticised by Unionists-even
to their faces-as being too "chival-
rous;" and Mr.. F. Il. Smith has issued
an elaborate defence of their conduct.
The London Spectator holds that these
two barristers "acted throughout in ac-
cordance with the highest traditions
of the English speaking bar" Speaking
of the case of Sir Edward Carson--and
the same words, it says, apply in every
respect to Mr.. F. f. Smith--it declares
that "Sir Edward Carson was asked to
defend a client. and as barrister he
gave without fear or favor his full
services. AS barrister he could do no
more and no less. In the position in
which he found himself there was but
was not that the attorney general was
the head of the profession to which he
belonged. and that he was entitled to
expect the highest services of the most
distinguished counsel. 1t was that a
client demanded the assistance of an
advocate, and that 1t was the duty of
the advocate to undertake that assist
ance to the fullest extent of his pow
ers He had no political questions to take
into consideration one way or another.
He had not to decide whether as
party that he should appear as coun-
sci for a home ruler Those questions
did not arise. We do not say that such
questions could not arise in other cir
cumstances. for to that point we shall
come in moment, but they ought not
| to have Influenced, and plainly did not
| influence, Sir Edward Carson's course
of action in this particular case. A
principle was involved upon which he
acted without hesitation"
| If the principle on which he acted
were not upheld, we might all come,
says the Spectator, to injustice and
wrong. Take this very case. If it had
been known early in the "Matin" ac-
tion these two barristers had refused
to act as counsel for Sir Rufus Isaacs,
"the whole affair in the minds Of or
dinary men would have been prejudic-
] ed" Worse still, If Sir Rufus had been
compelled to find counsel only among
/ his own party associates. then the case
bax boo frou cd IN RI
and the course of the administrator of
justice would have been brought into
disrepute. Referring to great prece-
dents. the Spectator quotes Erskine
when he was defending Tom Paine
against charge for seditious libel.