Year: 1872




The hteRigencer devotes its ponderous
leader to an adverse criticism upon the
order of the Supreme Court, excluding
MIR. Mcknight from appearing as coun-
sci or proctor in admiralty on one side
of q case while be stands as attorney OF
record for the parties to the suit on the
other side. in a case involving precisely
the same facts, assembling to the DIS
PATCH in this matter what belongs ex-
clusively to the Court atd to the public
to the Court as the final judges in the
matter, and to the public as determining
a rule of practice of great importance te
every suitor, to the dignity of the bench
and the honor of the bar. Our duty as
an independent journalist, swayed OIL
biased by no personal or party consider
ations, demanded this publication as a
matter of public concernment, no cam
did man will deny. If Mr.. Mcknight
has been unfairly treated thropgh the
unfriendly prejudice of any, certainly
the fault is not ou.s, but that of his
judges, who made this order, for oul
personal relations have ever been of a
friendly character, and not at all affect
ed by the transfer of his business from
us to a man who we know he despised,
for that we knew was only an evidence
of his business sagacity not uncompli-
mentary or cause of oflense to us. He
knew that with US, in his relations to
the public, he could get no more than
our duty to the public demanded. and
in no event would lie get less; that we
accepted no patronage" upon condi.
tions of subverting our paper to person.
al or private interests, and Lence he
transferred his business to black mai
sheet which serves only for pay, and the
result has justified his expectations; he
has had columns of editorial puffs and
laudations in a paper which there ofore
would not permit his name or that of
his law partner to appear in its columns
in reports of matters Of public interest
As medium of communicating facts Of
general interest to the public we will
not permit private interest or personal
feeling to mar The record. The dearest
friend We have on earth, had he stood
in the same position that Mr. McNaught
did in the matter under consideration
would not have deferred US from the
publication, however much we might
regret the circumstances. That an edit
or who recognizes no other rule thar
self-interest in his public relations
should impugn our motives, or that &
lawyer who has offered his services to
the litigant public for years without
achieving retainer on either side
should defend the practice of accepting
retainer on both sides, does not affec
the principle at issue, any more thar
would the proposed affidavits of Mr.
McNaught's partner, brother and father
in-law, tnat he had special agreement
with his first client which left him a
liberty to take retainer on the othel
side. The question determined was /
question of practice not to be affected
by private understanding not of record
1t is creditable to Mr.. McNaught's skill
as ii lawyer that his services should bt
sought by both parties litigant, but this
gives him no right to violate rule O
universal practice, which has been deem
ed necessary to protect litigants agains
the duplicity and treachery OF dishones
attorneys; else, a lawyer so disposed
might become possessed of facts materi
al to the rights of one client and sci
them to the other without incurring any
liability. That this rule has not beer
heretofore enforced in the courts in this
ANAAAeoAV, AiAoN bC Wv ulu1 W luC ldC
that the attention of the court has moi
before been demanded, or that its non
recognition has not worked any detri
ment to the rights of clients. Thus, in
the case of Bell VS.. Bell, tried in the
District Court in this county, Mr.. Nc.
Naught appeared as counsel for defend
ant at one term and counsel for plaintiff
at another, and no objection was made
But all intelligent men must admit that
it is dangerous precedent to establish,
liable to the grosset abuse, and that the
Supreme Court was fully justified In
declaring and enforcing tie common law
rule on the first occasion on which il
was demanded by the bar.