| OCR Text |
Show THE JUDGES AND LAWYERS AND THE JDRY QUESTION. There is an opinion commonly extant ex-tant thai lawyers are not entitled to rank amonf those who will be canoniz-ed, canoniz-ed, and that their patron deity, tho blind goddess with poised scales, should rather be pictured with both eyes wide- open to the main chance, Kuli -interc.it, and with the hopper holding hold-ing jubtiee stuck last against the beam, when gold is in the opposite scale. Hut although thero is a basis of fact for this opinion, the general rule is honesty hones-ty with both our lawyers and judges. .Litigants aro moro commonly ruined by the incompetency of lawyers and tho prejudices of judges, than by the venality of either, but ruin amounts to the same thing pecuniarily whether it proceeds from the causes Erst mentioned, mention-ed, or from tho latter, It lias almost bceomo a universal iaot that to go to law is to sacrifice the subject of litigation. litiga-tion. The glorious uncertainty of the law and tho extent of the ignorance and prejudice of the disciples of lilackstono is strikingly illustrated in the proceedings in the Kegel-brceht Kegel-brceht case against this city. The principle involved was as to the legality of summoning jurors at the option of a single man, and in defiance of the statutory requirements of this Territory and every Territory and State in the Union. At least one half of the lawyers in this city avowed the opinion, not as lawyers paid to mantain an absurd idea, but voluntarily, that the Mclvean method of impaneling grand and trial jurors was legal, and the supreme court of the Territory unanimously confirmed that opinion. The case was appealed to Washington, and the supreme court of the United States uuanimousiy reversed the opinr iun of the Territorial court. This unanimous decision of tho tribunal of final resort, is terribly reflective upon our Territorial judges and their supporters sup-porters among tho leg.d fraternity. It implies either that they are grossly ignorant of a simple proposition of law, or that their prejudices are so deep seated as to pervert their judgments. Of what worth are the legal opinions of men whose judgment upon a simple legal proposition is pronounc:d by the supreme court to be absurd. We know that somo of these men are not so grossly ignorant of law, as the decision of the supreme court implies that they arc, but in acquitting them of ignor-aueo, ignor-aueo, we aro compelled to charge them with, being possessed of a prejudice so intense as to render their opiuions as counselors iu any case where their personal animosities are concerned, as worse thin worthless, for their advice mast necessarily lead litigants into needless trouble and costs. No man is a safe counselor whoso prejudices are beyond tho control con-trol of his common sense, and this is tho exact situation of all lawyers who sustain the action of judge McKean on the jury qusstioD, except thrse who j are entitled to the distinction of being born fools with this unfortunate con- I genital infirmity aggravated by a smat.l tcring knowledge of law. j |
