The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1913-01-01

rected at the lawyS
The Oklahoma q BASS

peal IRON a cOnVlc1iV6 OF murder
wherein the deathpenalty was}
awarded, said: EWithout disre-
spect to cougsel for appellant,
there is absolutely nothing in
tnelr co1ention. 1t simple shows
20 skt desperate extremities
are sometimes reduced
"a attempting to save and pro
tect guilty men. It also shows
how necessary it is, for courts to
go to the bottom of all questions
presented. IF lawyers would Sc
riously consider the questions
they present and examine the
authorities upon which they rely |
and would brief them carefully |
before their cases are submitted,
they would relieve this court OF
a vast amount of unnecessary Ia
Dor and greatly aid the court in
disposing of the business before
it. We do not object to doing the
work, and always take great
pleasure in the investigation Of
anv legal question submitted to
US for decision; but owing to the /
crowded condition of our docket
and the further fact that we are
already worked to the limit of
human endurance in deciding
questions properly oriefed, we
feel that justice to the state re.
quires that our time should not
be taken up in investigating
questions which have not been
properly briefed.'' %
If a lawyer believes his client
innocent. it is impossible to fight
too long or too strenuously toI
save him. But when be knows he
is guilty he should content him
self with having made an honest
ly effort before a jury to secure
a light sentence for him.-Green-
vile Piedmont.
There is little to be added to |
that and about the only comment
we care to offer is that it furnish
es a very clear exposition of the
difference between the profes.
sional view and the lay view.
The Office of attorney had it's Or
ipin in the idea of allowing a |
litigant the most expert and
learned assistance in the presen-
tation of the justice of his plea.
In the early days of legal prac
tice in Virginia and other states.
public opinion held ita crime for |
an attorney to procure the lega
release of a guilty client, and d =.
ing two or three generations, /
there was the strongest senti-
ment against allowing attorneys
to appear before courts at all.
This sentiment was based mainly
on the idea that attorneys were
able to say and do things that
would be lmpracticable and i'm
possible for the client, even if he
knew how, because of the shift
ing of responsibility. And it is
also possible that some of the ob,
lection arose out of a foresight
of present conditions. Popular
sentiment still holds to the idea
as expressed in the observation
of the Piedmont, that the lawyer
is warranted in going any length
to secure the acquittal Of a client
he knows to be innocent, Whlle
he is not warranted in giving
further assistance for a guilty
client; but that doctrine is not
nearly so strong in the profes
sion as. it is among the laity.
There is no getting around the
fact that defeat of law and justice
by lawyers is as subversive of
order as the same offence by the
lefty. and it is quite probable
that if the legal profession, as a
whole, was more loyal to the in
tegrity of the law in the letter
ard spirit the confidence re-
spect. and even >~c~o+;cc I'D
tie ait wo@td BE s&:2az.9e"2d
IN proecrlioa.- ,:'.v:!!" n>a.
:; r;s;;;,,sssrer.
All OF gas s6ove z<;c,;, soyH
asss2 sSron :, k.ll21tEiS -, le-s' -.
..essiSg we're 10 c5: zSsssE'ss ss's9lia. II: +.