Year: 1874

that ought to be pressed home upon the
attention of lawyers who are members OF
Congress and lawyers also who do business
in New York in strange, loose way. There
is no good reason why lawyers serving
IN either house of Congress may not argue
causes in the Supreme Court, under the re-
strictions which we will presently indicate
1t has always been customary in this country
and, supported by such lawyers as Pinckney,
Sergeant, Webster and Reverdy johnson, the
custom has passed without challenge. Law
yers who are members of the British House
of Commons have always pursued the practice
OF their profession unless they consented to
take Office. Brougham had a severe struggle
with himself when his party pressed him 10
take the Lord Cha hancellorship, and to the end
of his life he thought it mistake to have
relinquished his large professional gains
which he might have retained as a simple
member Of Parliament But it is not
only Objectionable but scandalons for
members OF Congress to 80 into the
Supreme Court with heavy retainers and argue
cases involving the same questions on which
they will afterward be called to act in their
legislative capacity. Nothing is easier than
to represent their counsel fees MS bribes, and
it might sometimes be difficult to repel the
accusation. Undoubtedly this practice ought
to be condemned and abolished II is more
than indehcate; it is inconsistent with
the high measure OF professional and
political honor. The same reasons which
exclude from q jury every man who has
an interest in the trial, the same reasons
which forbid a judge to sit in case in which
he has acted as counsel, are OF equal force
against the practice of taking fees as lawyer
and then going into Congress and voting on
questions relating to the same subject matter


These things have been done, and we have
no doubt there are a thousand instances at
hand of public men who have earned fees for
arguing before the Courts what they would be
called upon to decide as legislators. We
think there should be an end Of it. lawyer
who accepts fee-as Butler did-may be as
innocent as possible in the transaction, but
the country will not always so regard it.
When the popular mind is asked to decide
between O fee and bribe the distinction be-
comes Eazy; and public men who allow their
business needs to force them into this posi-
ton must not complain if they are condemned
harshly. Among the evils resulting from our
civil war is an obtuseness of mind upon what
public man owes to himself and what is due
to his profession. Things are done now as
matter of course, consecrated by custom and
opportunity, that would never have been per-
mitted in the earlier days. Our condemna-
who are involved in this disclosure, but upon
the system. It is great pity they wero not
brave enough to rise above the system and
make to themselves a law of Jefersonian
purity. But we cannot censure public man
for being no better than his time Senator
Bayard, of Delaware, shines out like star in
the dark galaxy Of present craftsmanship for
his noble letter in response to an application
to become stockholder in the Credit Mo-
biier. He had no question Of the value of the
stock, but he could have no pecuniary interest
in any company that would need legislation.
How much better letter Of this kind would
have read from General Butler than his busi-
ness communication asking for his fee. The
time has come for our public men to accept
the Bayard standard in their relations with
Congress. Public opinion should reform the
custom that has SO long held good, and lay it
down as a rule that, between a fee and bribe
on all questions that may be questions of legis-
lation, there can be and should be no differ
ence.