on Lawyers.

whom the less said in charity the better. But is it the correct thing to do to estimate an entire class by such samples? What opinion would the ordinary layman entertain of a court of justice that entered up its judg ment after one of the contestants had pre sented his evidence, without even so much as hearing the opposite testimony? Because some colored persons reside on a street, shall we aver that all the residents on that partic ular thoroughfare are Africans? In churches there are generally some members whose lives are in no sense consonant with their professions, but will any impartial mind de clare on that account that all Christians are hypocrites? On the contrary, does not the very presence of counterfeit money prove that there must be such a thing as genuine currency? Such being the case, the horror that some persons pretend to entertain for this pro fession in toto is absolutely inexplicable. Many individuals base their aversion on the phraseology of Holy Writ, which declares that he who goes to law shall atone for such fatuity by losing his last shilling. Other opponents, of a more facetious turn of mind, affirm that a lawyer always demonstrates his military training by his magnificent charges. In spite of these serious arraignments, how ever, experience teaches that the fees of the legal practitioner are seldom more exorbitant than those demanded by a reputable physi cian or a competent surgeon. Again, the lawyer is usually considered responsible for all the anomalies existing in the present systems of jurisprudence. But such accusation is not just. In the law, as he is compelled to practise it, he observes much that should be modified, but he soon comes also to recognize his own impotency. The rule of precedent is despotic and inex orable. No matter what the glient may think of the equity of his case, the lawyer's business is simply to administer the reme dies as he finds them. In some aspects the settled rule that an employee is not allowed to recover for accident caused by neglect of

his fellow employee, is a harsh doctrine, and will be so adjudged by many. Any one familiar with legal history knows that the recent improvements in the law have been numerous and important; but, despite this fact, many technicalities still linger. If these are occasionally employed by some shrewd advocate to acquit a crim inal, our ears are always saluted with " mal administration of justice," and other expres sions equally complimentary. Were these complainants, these individuals, who now declaim on the foolish, abstruse legal points, as they stigmatize them, under arraignment, — were they themselves on trial, it is seri ously apprehended their opinions would very suddenly change, and that they would urge their lawyer to employ every device to secure their acquittal. Recently one of the writer's clients brought a claim to his office for collection. The defendant in the suit was threatened with sev eral similar prosecutions, but my most excel lent friend urged me, in quite emphatic lan guage, to realize his claim before I took any steps to recover for his " companions in dis tress." Had not our critical friends better remove the beam from their own eyes before they attempt to operate on the optics of the legal profession? But once more. We also hear much about lawyers having no consciences. This pabu lum has been placed before us so frequently that we can adopt the language of the board ing-house victim, when he candidly informed the conventional pig's face that he had had the ineffable pleasure of beholding his visage several times in the last few days. An acquaintance recently went to the ex tent of affirming that it was a mystery to him how an attorney could be a Christian. How can an individual justify himself in pleading for a man of whose guilt he is confident? continued this Cato, the junior. But such argument proceeds upon nothing better than a pons asinorum. Lawyers and clients alike know that seldom, very seldom, is a legal adviser in possession of the facts until