FORMS AND FAILURES OF THE LAW. 757 



her presence at the trial, while the miscreant who assailed her, being 

 widely known among politicians and saloon habitues, remains at large 

 on bail ! Such proceedings subvert or discourage justice, but a reform 

 involves so much disturbance of conservatism that a quarter of a cent- 

 ury may elapse before it is favored by lawyers. 



Abuses in the examination of witnesses often crop out, which tend 

 to discourage litigation and interfere with justice. A lawyer with a 

 bad case, but ambitious to maintain or make a reputation, is quite cer- 

 tain to make the cross-examination of witnesses a terror to any per- 

 son whom browbeating or insults can throw off his balance. Judges 

 might reform this, but, as in most other law proceedings, the attorney 

 is allowed a latitude out of all reason. A favorite way to confuse a 

 witness is to insist on categorical answers to questions ingeniously 

 framed to reflect on his consistency, and, when any attempt is made at 

 explanation or qualification, to suppress it by bullying and threats. 

 Any man of much observation knows that "the truth, the whole truth, 

 and nothing but the truth," can not be always told by answering 

 " yes " or " no," and for this reason witnesses have a moral right to 

 explain or qualify ; but the average lawyer has no regard for that, 

 if a qualified answer is likely to injure his case. The truth is often 

 the last thing he wants, and if he can confuse, or worry, or bully the 

 witness so as to throw doubts on his testimony, it harmonizes with his 

 ideas of "the ends of justice." The courts are censurable for allow- 

 ing this abuse, and it is a pity that there is no appellate or impeach- 

 ment court to take special cognizance of such offenses, and to punish 

 both judge and lawyer when such outrages are consummated. In 

 other cases the character of respectable witnesses is outrageously 

 attacked in summing up, and trifling, youthful, almost forgotten in- 

 discretions magnified out of all proportion to their importance in 

 order to throw discredit on testimony which can not otherwise be 

 assailed. 



It need not be said that crime is rarely punished in proportion to 

 its seriousness, nor that this matter is almost invariably governed by 

 the amount of capital controlled by the criminal for defense. And yet 

 the legal profession, which on occasion has so much to say of its 

 services and its high character, never treats this as a reproach. Proba- 

 bly not one lawyer in a thousand thinks it disreputable to defend the 

 most infamous swindler, defaulter, or bank-robber for pay, thus sharing 

 with him in the avails of his robberies. The well-known fact that the 

 late William M. Tweed was a robber on a colossal scale did not deter 

 "eminent counsel" from defending him persistently until, owing to 

 some informality, his release was ordered by the highest State court. 

 Nobody questioned his guilt, but the conditions of the law are such 

 that an error which did not affect the question of guilt at all was 

 enough to set aside years of costly litigation, and to liberate a smooth- 

 mannered villain whose incarceration for the rest of his worthless life 



