The Same Man Makes Your Will, Sells Your Property,
Brings An Action For You Of Trespass Against Your Neighbor, Defends
You when you are accused of murder, recovers for you two and
sixpence, and pleads for you in an argument
Of three days' length
when you claim to be the sole heir to your grandfather's enormous
property. I need not describe how terribly distinct with us is the
difference between an attorney and a barrister, or how much farther
than poles asunder is the future Lord Chancellor, pleading before
the Lords Justices at Lincoln's Inn, from the gentleman who, at the
Old Bailey, is endeavoring to secure the personal liberty of the
ruffian who, a week or two since, walked off with all your silver
spoons. In the States no such differences are known. A lawyer
there is a lawyer, and is supposed to do for any client any work
that a lawyer may be called on to perform. But though this is the
theory - and as regards any difference between attorney and barrister
is altogether the fact - the assumed practice is not, and cannot be,
maintained as regards the various branches of a lawyer's work. When
the population was smaller, and the law cases were less complicated,
the theory and the practice were no doubt alike. As great cities
have grown up, and properties large in amount have come under
litigation, certain lawyers have found it expedient and practicable
to devote themselves to special branches of their profession. But
this, even up to the present time, has not been done openly, as it
were, or with any declaration made by a man as to his own branch of
his calling. I believe that no such declaration on his part would
be in accordance with the rules of the profession. He takes a
partner, however, and thus attains his object; or more than one
partner, and then the business of the house is divided among them
according to their individual specialties. One will plead in court,
another will give chamber counsel, and a third will take that lower
business which must be done, but which first-rate men hardly like to
do.
It will easily be perceived that law in this way will be made
cheaper to the litigant. Whether or no that may be an unadulterated
advantage, I have my doubts. I fancy that the united professional
incomes of all the lawyers in the States would exceed in amount
those made in England. In America every man of note seems to be a
lawyer; and I am told that any lawyer who will work may make a sure
income. If it be so, it would seem that Americans per head pay as
much (or more) for their law as men do in England. It may be
answered that they get more law for their money. That may be
possible, and even yet they may not be gainers. I have been
inclined to think that there was an unnecessarily slow and expensive
ceremonial among us in the employment of barristers through a third
party; it has seemed that the man of learning, on whose efforts the
litigant really depends, is divided off from his client and employer
by an unfair barrier, used only to enhance his own dignity and give
an unnecessary grandeur to his position. I still think that the
fault with us lies in this direction. But I feel that I am less
inclined to demand an immediate alteration in our practice than I
was before I had seen any of the American courts of law.
It should be generally understood that lawyers are the leading men
in the States, and that the governance of the country has been
almost entirely in their hands ever since the political life of the
nation became full and strong. All public business of importance
falls naturally into their hands, as with us it falls into the hands
of men of settled wealth and landed property. Indeed, the fact on
which I insist is much more clear and defined in the States than it
is with us. In England the lawyers also obtain no inconsiderable
share of political and municipal power. The latter is perhaps more
in the hands of merchants and men in trade than of any other class;
and even the highest seats of political greatness are more open with
us to the world at large than they seem to be in the States to any
that are not lawyers. Since the days of Washington every President
of the United States has, I think, been a lawyer, excepting General
Taylor. Other Presidents have been generals, but then they have
also been lawyers. General Jackson was a successful lawyer. Almost
all the leading politicians of the present day are lawyers. Seward,
Cameron, Welles, Stanton, Chase, Sumner, Crittenden, Harris,
Fessenden, are all lawyers. Webster, Clay, Calhoun, and Cass were
lawyers. Hamilton and Jay were lawyers. Any man with an ambition
to enter upon public life becomes a lawyer as a matter of course.
It seems as though a study and practice of the law were necessary
ingredients in a man's preparation for political life. I have no
doubt that a very large proportion of both houses of legislature
would be found to consist of lawyers. I do not remember that I know
of the circumstance of more than one Senator who is not a lawyer.
Lawyers form the ruling class in America, as the landowners do with
us. With us that ruling class is the wealthiest class; but this is
not so in the States. It might be wished that it were so.
The great and ever-present difference between the National or
Federal affairs of the United States government and the affairs of
the government of each individual State, should be borne in mind at
all times by those who desire to understand the political position
of the States. Till this be realized no one can have any correct
idea of the bearings of politics in that country.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 99 of 140
Words from 99847 to 100853
of 142339
