to us with every selfish feeling sharply and newly pointed. Many a man has come to my office whom I have at first longed to pitch out of the window, and, yet, at length I have discovered that he was only doing as I might have done in his case, being very angry and of course very unreasonable. I have satisfied myself that, if our profession sees more of human roguery than others, it is because we see it acting in that channel in which it can most freely vent itself. In civ ilized society, law is the chimney through which all the smoke discharges itself, that used to circulate through the whole house and put every one's eyes out. No wonder therefore that the chimney itself should sometimes get a little sooty." It is not in the nature of things for both parties to a suit to win. One fails. He has costs to pay and perhaps damages or a fine besides. He is chagrined. He is consider ably out of pocket. Because he has failed, he is disposed to think that his attorney should not expect a fee. The attorney thinks differently. Hence arises a dislike for the profession which is considerably fomented by the explosive state of his feelings. Or perhaps he considers that he has not re ceived justice; that he has been denied some of his rights. Hence he proclaims that the law is a travesty and justice a farce. Where as, had he won the suit, his opponent would have failed and might probably have been equally eloquent in his denunciations of law yers and of the profession generally. Now when you consider that there are of ne cessity hundreds of such instances as these every day, is it to be marveled at that this popular impression should exist? It is in deed to be regretted that more cases which simply arise from two persons getting at loggerheads with one another are not settled out of court. It does not add to the dignity of a court or of a community for persons who fail to keep the peace to be so anxious to air their grievances and wash their dirty linen in public. No decent housewife thinks
of going through with a family washing out in the front yard. No lawyer of standing, who is proud of his profession, is fond of this kind of work. But if persons of quar relsome disposition and litigious spirit are determined to thrust themselves into court in order to enjoy the sweets of revenge, and seek to comfort themselves with a money solatium, there is no help for it, and they must be prepared for the outcome of the trial if it prove a failure. I would there fore state that it is the misfortune rather than the fault of the profession which has led to this stigma being fastened upon it. It is further probable that an additional reason why this stigma has been attached to the legal profession is to be found in the alarm ing and singular pronouncements which are sometimes made in the administration of the law. It is true that in some of these cases the lay mind is not sufficiently instructed to recognize the principles which underlie ap parently unjust decisions and dicta. But, account for it as you may, there is a growing spirit of uneasiness with respect to the abso lute integrity of the duly authorized expo nents of the law in the discharge of their high and responsible duties. It is impossible to find language suffi ciently plain to condemn conscious tamper ing and tinkering with the well settled prin ciples of law for the purpose of shielding wrong, authorizing injustice or pandering to political expediency. Such conduct, whether it emanate from the bench or from the bar, is inexcusable and indefensible. It is a disgrace to the State and a shame to the persons who are so far forgetful of their oath of office (not to mention the sentiments of manhood), as to lend their countenance to it. It strikes at the foundation of peaceable society and imperils not simply the " bene esse" but the very "esse" of civilization. It should be visited with impeachment or dis barment. A justice of the peace or an at torney who will take advantage of a de fenseless woman, say a widow in straitened
