ciation. I do this with the hope that the members of the Association may be constrained to give the matter their attention in a business way, and that ultimately some good for the profession in West Virginia may be accomplished. I have read somewhere, that, once upon a time, down South, there was a colored debating club, and they seriously debated the question, as to which was "the greater evil to society, the lawyers, or the buzzards," and what is worse, after arguing the question pro and con, the decision of the judges was in favor of the buzzards. It would seem from this that the profession are not always held in the very highest esteem. And I infer that there must be some reason for the disrepute into which the lawyer has fallen. What are the causes that have wrought upon the popular mind to suggest a contrast so damaging to a body of men, who in their own estimation are of paramount importance?

But popular opinion is not always correct, though it is undoubtedly formed and made up from facts, as they exist, or as presented to the popular gaze. The popular mind, I venture to say, does not always grasp the whole situation.

I assert that lawyers are as a rule neither better nor worse, by nature, than other people. Their education, and habits of study and thought, should enable them, at least, to make an appearance before the world, which would command respect, and which I assert does command the highest admiration.

It is in the Forum especially that the lawyer makes his impress upon the public, yet how often is that impress different from what it ought to be. I venture to assert that in many instances the " ad captandum" speeches of the shyster win more applause than the solid reasoning of the learned jurist.

It ought to be true that splendid power of intellect will ever win respect and applause, but splendid power of intellect is sometimes directed in vain, while false logic and misrepresentation are used with telling effect.

In the Forum, as elsewhere, a gentleman is a gentleman, and a ruffian is a ruffian, and yet I have my grave suspicions

that the public sometimes mistakes the ruffian for the gentleman.

In the Forum, as elsewhere, good morals imply good manners, and I sometimes suspicion that bad manners are mistaken for good morals.

In the Forum, as elsewhere, courteous and polite behavior ought to be rewarded and I fear it often happens that courtesy is practiced at a sacrifice. The yielding disposition of the attorney who attempts to be courteous and polite, is sometimes taken for weakness, while aggressive impudence and brass are taken for native ability.

Clients, as a rule, are pleased with exhibitions of ill temper, not being in a very amiable frame of mind themselves, and even the learned judge upon the bench is sometimes apparently moved by dint of noise and bluster more than by law or logic.

When a perjured and obdurate witness is rebuked or castigated, he gets no more than he deserves, but even this privilege of the attorney ofttimes had better be omitted.

It is a maxim of the law that it is better that ninety and nine rogues should escape punishment than that one innocent person should suffer, and this maxim would seem to apply in such case. Yet so it is, that the "brow-beating" of an unoffending witness sometimes wins the applause of bystanders, while at another time a deserved reflection on a dishonest one is branded as ruffianism.

I have known lawyers who won their cases always by their abuse of witnesses, and were unable to succeed otherwise. This is wrong. Witnesses sometimes expect abuse and in order to avoid it they will conceal the truth, or driven to desperation they will tell more than the truth. The display of oratorical power by the advocate is sometimes amazing.

"In many looks the false heart's history

Is writ, in moods, and frowns, and wrinkles strange,"

or, as Pope would say, he is

"Forever in a passion or a prayer."

He has a varied style.

Out of a labyrinth of sunshine, the advocate plunges suddenly into a storm that is awful in its fury. And then from the blackest cloud of abuse, he drops as suddenly into the serenest calm. As he touches evidence that is favorable to his side of the case, he is serenely placid; as he passes to that which is not favorable, his rage is uncontrollable.

There is the attorney who argues his cases, however, with so much amiability and kindness, that the closest attention would not disclose which side was being advocated, and this is as much an impropriety as the other. There is a difference between deserved and moderate rebuke in a proper case, and in indiscriminate abuse in a wrong case, so there is a difference between decided reasoning tending directly to the establishment of a proposition and a conglomerated string of neutralizing statements from which no logical conclusions are reached favorable to one side or the other. The Law is of the learned professions, and its members should discountenance extravagant sayings and all bluster as well as meaningless chatter.

The gyrations of a real quixotic lawyer in court are most wonderful. When under restraint he is pantomimical to an extent that would be amusing if he were not offensive. When the court instructs favorably to his side of a case, he nods his approval frantically to make an impression on the jury. And to each opinion of the court rendered he signals the jury so as to impress them with the idea that the learned judge has or has not grasped the situation. Sitting in the rear of counsel arguing on the other side, he wags his head so that the jury may know just how much of his antagonist's statements to believe or disbelieve.

"Oh! what a tangled web we lawyers weave,
When we practice to deceive."

But professional improprieties are in some cases more culpable than in others. Some of them are real misdemeanors and some border on to felonies.

Innocent foibles are easily tolerated, but when an act is

criminal, its commission is even more a crime in a lawyer than in any common person.

In the manipulation of witnesses the lawyer enters upon precarious ground.

The temptation to persuade or dissuade witnesses in relation to the testimony which they are to give under the sanctity of an oath, is often strong, but the attorney should always bear in mind the importance of dealing fairly and acting conscientiously in relation to a matter in which the vengeance of heaven is imprecated and God himself is called to witness its truth. It is a privilege conceded to the attorney to talk with his clients' witnesses in order that he may know how to approach them in their examination. There is no impropriety in his inquiring of witnesses us to their knowledge on a particular subject, but the upright attorney should not allow himself to fall into the vice of coaching."

To persuade or dissuade a witness to speak or not to speak certain things on oath may amount to subornation of perjury.

The matter of taking and reducing to writing the testimony of witnesses is one deserving of much consideration. The taking of depositions is never a pleasant task and the disageeableness of this business is perhaps somewhat the result of neglect or carelessness.

Taken in some law office or shop or store or secluded room, before an unimportant functionary, there is not the uwe and reverence surrounding the occasion that is inspired by a higher tribunal. The witness is not so much impressed nor is the lawyer so much restrained. There is danger of the witness forgetting the solemnity of his oath and becoming flippant, which impels the attorney to indulge in improprieties wholly unbecoming a member of the great profession to which he belongs. Wrangles between opposing solicitors spring up and men ordinarily dignified and complacent become, through exasperation, senseless rowdies.

One personality calls out another and I have actually

seen men for whom I had the highest respect engage in a brawling fight over the taking of depositions.

"When civil like dudgeons they first grow high

And then fall out they know not why,

When hard words, jealousies, and fears

Set them together by the ears."

The lawyer more than any other man ought to be lawabiding, for it may be said that where the lawyers, the judges and the prosecuting attorneys abide, certainly there abides the law.

It always seemed to me that the modus operandi of taking depositions might be reformed so as to remove some of the unpleasant features. For example, when a question is objected to, the rules ought somehow or other to restrain the objector from at the same time arguing his case and instructing the witness. The rules ought not to permit a witness when about to be corraled on crossexamination to be there leased and set scot-free by suggestions injected into the belly of an objection to the question. It is such improprieties as these that lead to riot and breach of the peace in the very presence of the law.

It must be admitted that lawyers have tempers and have not much more ability to control them than have other people. I would recommend in this behalf a modified version of the old thread-bare verse:

"But Lawyers, you should never let your angry passions rise,
Your little hands were never made to tear each other's eyes."

There is another impropriety I shall mention, in which no reputable lawyer ever engages, and that is drumming for business.

The empiric in the profession of medicine by means of ethical rules has been relegated to his proper position, and the shyster should be held in the same estimation. By means of regulations adopted and enforced by the Law Associations, the quack lawyer should be discountenanced if not blacklisted. Quack advertising is no more to be tolerated in the legal profession than in the medical.