9 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



greatly criticized therefor; whereas openly to condemn a judge, qua 

 judge, shocks certain of our quasi-religious sensibilities. 



This very ancient and now quite harmful habit of ascribing a certain 

 sanctity to law makers means that we tend to look upon them with a cer- 

 tain religious reverence and submission. In further accordance with 

 this habit we select our law makers primarily or largely for their adher- 

 ence to a creed and for their activity in securing converts to that creed. 

 The intrusion of those elements of religious enthusiasm, which make for 

 the destruction of all judicious decision, into the work of selecting our 

 law makers is alone sufficient reason for the conclusion that they must 

 do us much harm. 



The habit of having, in the alignment of the rules the king or the 

 majority enforce an elaborate technique, practised by a privileged class, 

 the lawyers, has a peculiar harmfulness. 



The habit of having kings, or law-enforcers in any form, and the 

 habit of having legislators or other kinds of law makers, are both survi- 

 vals and both are doing injury through their failure to fit the more civil- 

 ized communities which still retain them. But both were once quite 

 essential to progress, and seem still to possess advantageous features, 

 even to societies as advanced as our own. The tribal chief and abject 

 obedience to him were once quite important factors in the struggle for 

 tribal survival. In later forms of society it was as important that the 

 elders of the tribe lay down rules adapted to changing conditions as it 

 was that the grand chief enforce them. That is, the habit of having laws 

 made, and the habit of obeying the one who was there to enforce them, 

 were once quite markedly helpful habits and have some excuse for sur- 

 vival even down to our own day. But for the habit of having a privi- 

 leged class in charge, as it were, of the technique of the distribution of 

 the effects of the law, of this not so much can be said. 



The origin of the lawyer-having habit at once discloses to us a suffi- 

 cient reason for the power and persistence of the custom of making him 

 a privileged member of society, and points also to its harmfulness. 



The tribal chief of early days took on, from his earliest appearance, 

 certain ecclesiastical trappings and powers. He was often a god him- 

 self, either during his life or immediately after his death. He was often 

 chief priest as well as head man. The priestly class which grew up about 

 him performed the accustomed sacerdotal rites, led the people through 

 the mummeries of the tribal religion, took on much of the sanctity which 

 custom gave to the head man himself, and, inevitably, became a special- 

 ized class with peculiar powers, immunities and dignities. 



The fact of the descent of the lawyer class from this priestly class is 

 familiar enough. The lawyer's special privileges have descended directly 

 from those enjoyed by medicine men and priests who surrounded the 

 tribal leader and helped him to exercise his more god-like functions and 



