THE MATAMOROS PAPERS.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1935, 19 July 1869, Page 3

THE MATAMOROS PAPERS.

“ Nemo repente fuit turpi-sinnis.”— Jtrv. The education of a lawyer is a work of time. Bancroft, in his “ History of the United States,” tells ns that in. the early days of the Colony of Virginia, the House of Representatives voted “ the total ejection of mercenary attorneys.” Of coarse, we cannot wonder at the desire of the young community to have the law administered in the simplest and most efficient manner, so that every man might get his own, and every criminal be punished, with as little difficulty and delay as possible. JSTor ought we to be surprised that they adopted the plan most likely to bring about this very desirable end. When Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, was in England, he visited, among other places, Westminster Hall. It was term time, and numbers of the barristers in and about the court were noticed by him, in answer to his enquiry i as to their occupation, he was informed | that they were lawyers. " Lawyers,” i said he ; “ what an unfortunate country j England must be to have so many lawyers. I have only two in all my dominions, and it is my intention to bang one of them when I return.” It is to hoped that few persons could he found ;it thp vyesmip day willing to support a measure for law reform of so Startling a character as that adopted by the Russian autocrat, but there are many "who think that we might with advantage follow the example of the Virginians, and abolish lawyers altogether. And, no doubt, this A ? iew of the matter is correct enough, as far as the primary object for which they are maintained among ns is concerned. We can hardly believe that lawsuits would not be settled in a far more summary and satisfactory manner than they are now, if they Avere taken out of the hands of persons whose direct interest it is Unit they should be settled, if at all, in the most roundabout'ancl dilatory Avay that can he devised ; of persons, who. are from the very nature of the ease, accustomed to look at every suit jroui a bix-and-eight-penny point of view, as an affair whose natural conclusion is a bill, the merit of Avhich is to be estimated accordingly as it is <! stiff,” or otherwise. It must he confessed too, that a court of justice, being as it is a sort of temple of truth, the place where men have to exercise the judicial function, —perhaps the highest

pertaining to them —should be kept as free as possible from all that can tend to confuse or perplex in any way the minds of the judge or the jury, so as to prevent them from applying to the case befoie them those principles which have their foundation on the eternal distinction between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. It would seem, then, that a court of justice is hardly the place to be made an area for the display of a man s skill in “ making the -worse appear the better cause,” or, otherwise, according as he is paid, hardly the place for a man whose whole task is, not to try to discover the truth, but “ to do the best he can for his client,” that is, generally, by quibbling, shuffling, feigning, and by brow-beating honest witnesses, to hinder, as far as in him lies, the jury from giving a just verdict. Many of the men who do this are upright and honorable enough, according to their light, but surely the system is a horrible one. Not a few people, too, are of opinion that the law is unnecessarily complex and bulky. They believe that it would be well if it could be considerably simplified and condensed. Something, they say, after the fashion and about the length of the Ten Commandments, might answer, on the whole, as well as the statutes, precedents, etc., at present in force, the books containing and commenting on which would, if piled one on the other, reach about the same height as the New Post Office tower’. They say, moreover, that no two legal cases being exactly alike, an appeal to first principles is always necessary before any case whatever can bo decided and that, therefore, it might be as well that juries should be entirely guided by reference to these principles, the opinion of Judge Capias or Baron Pettifog, who have been dead for a century or so, going for nothing. As the philosopher observes, “The establishment of an exact penalty for every offence is impossible ; if it were possible, it is not desirable, j because justice, not less than mercy, imposes the duty of regulating the punishment by the circumstances ot the case.” It is further urged that, with a law of this kind, it might be possible for a litigant to know whether lie had good ground for expecting a verdict in his favor or not; while at present no man can fell sure, however good his conduct may be, that he has a reasonable chance of gaining Iris suit ; for the most expert lawyer is unable to tell what result will be produced when three or four statutes, and twenty or thirty precedents, are brought to bear on one another. However this may be, I think there are circumstances which render it impossible for ns to do without the legal profession. In the first place, what would novel-writers do if there were no lawyers ? Where would they be able to get those characters which are so interesting—those curious compounds of audacity and chicanery I If there were no lawyers, one-half of our best novels would be worthless ! There is no other system now in existence, which could give a moderate amount of probability to a description of schemes and rascalities, which wo now acknowledge to be not only not improbable, but very lifelike—“ so much like what one hears of every day.” Then, how many of our quaintest and most familiar proverbs would fall flat and insipid if there were no lawyers. Where, in that case, would be the irony in the expression, “An honest lawyer ” ? What wit would there be in comparing the pace of a “ screw ” to tho rate at which members of the legal profession go to heaven 'I The principal benefit, however, conferred on the community by j the lawyers is that they act as a must j salutary check on litigious or quarrcl- ' some dispositions. A sensible man, j however prone he may bo to quarrel I with his neighbors, after ho has once gone to law, never repeats his visit; while a quarrelsome fool is soon cjfectnally deprived of die means ot indulging his legal tastes, St. Oukn. i . , .. .