Americans are to be congratulated that their government requires no such expensive orna ment, but I think few people will be inclined to admit that the government of the United States is conducted with better results to the people at large, notwithstanding its free dom from the burden of royalty. The truth is, what suits the English in England would not suit the Americans in America. An American seems to feel that the administra tion of justice needs no formula to make it im pressive. We consider that a lawsuit is such an important thing that when a man enters a court of justice, he should feel he is taking a step outside of his ordinary business avoca tion; he should be alive to the responsibility of his actions; he should understand that the temple of Themis does not wear the same ordinary look as the market-place. It is difficult to estimate the practical utility of this solemnity. Most people who have lived in England or Ireland will acknowledge that it is of some use; and I say we can no more find a reason for adhering to customs which appear to mean nothing, than that, even in America, people find it necessary to don an evening dress when attending a " soirée;" and that I am not aware that any gentleman on your side of the Atlantic has yet seen fit to answer the question, " Cui bono?" when asked of a claw-hammer coat and white cravat. Americans in London who come in search of lawyers will no doubt find some difficulty in talking business matters to counsel with out having first seen a solicitor. The con sideration of this difficulty leads to the more important question of the amalgamation of the professions. I have spoken to many American lawyers on this subject, and they all seem to prefer the dual system to that which obtains in their country. An Ameri can lawyer has to see clients, prepare his case, read up the law which bears upon the facts at issue, and plead in court. As a result, from my information, I find the fees as high in America as in England, cases not so thoroughly prepared, the law not so
well understood, the lawyer not so highly respected. Indeed, one of the worst results that flows from the amalgamation of the professions in America, is the dependence of lawyers upon a repute which they must make for themselves, " coûte que conte" The old motto, "Non tarn (игре fuit vinci, quam contendisse decorum" finds no place in America. A lawyer's name is made by the number of cases he wins, not by the knowl edge of law, nor by the power of combining, of elucidating, and of explaining facts which he shows to the court and jury. Hence the personal acrimony, the intense jealousy, the mortal enmity, which a short acquaintance with American lawyers is sure to bring to light. In England a solicitor will recognize the ability of a barrister who makes a good fight in a losing battle. In America a lawyer is known only by the results he pro duces. As a consequence, in every lawsuit, it is not only the interests of his client which are involved, but the interests of the lawyer himself are no little incentive to his efforts to convince the- court and jury. The lawyer's aim must therefore be, not that justice be done, but that he should obtain a verdict, at all costs. In a trial in an American court, I am afraid witnesses are too often previously " drilled " upon what they are to testify. Lawyers are not above resorting to " sharp practice " during the trial; as, for example, suddenly calling in a piece of testimony which is not legally per missible, for the purpose of influencing the jury, or forgetting the respect due to a fellow practitioner, as I have seen on one occasion, when a counsel called on the opposing counsel to testify to something which he had inadvertently said in a con versation with him, as to facts which the witness, who had left the stand, had deposed and contradicted. Lawyers in America do not measure their conduct in a case by the motto " Fiat justitia ruât cœlum." They are too much dependent upon their client's estimation to risk such impartial comment as the motto
