'220 TJrdaJd—The Present Fee System in the United States. 
All of these methods are fundamentally wrong, and based on 
theory which cannot be supported either by facts or by argu¬ 
ments. It is supposed to increase the efficiency of the attorney 
by offering him a pecuniary inducement to undertake and pros¬ 
ecute cases. But is there not every legitimate incentive to an 
attorney to do his work well, even when he is paid by salary? 
His reputation as a lawyer is at stake, the esteem and good will 
of his constituents impel him to prosecute every legitimate case. 
His success as a lawyer after his term of office expires, will de¬ 
pend largely on the way in which he performs his duties of office. 
He can gain nothing by letting crime go unpunished, and he 
has everything to lose. 
But suppose the man is of such a character that the paltry 
fee will stimulate him to action. If it is only the money he is 
after, what is to prevent him from accepting a higher reward 
from the criminal for not prosecuting than the state offers for 
conviction? What is to prevent him from “drumming up” 
business by beginning suits wherever there is the slighest 
chance of winning. 
It is held to be economical, because the attorney, it is thought, 
would not begin cases unless he supposed he could win; and if 
he is a poor attorney, he would not win his cases, and as a re¬ 
sult it would cost the county and state little or nothing. But 
this economy is apparent, not real. The attorney’s fee is by 
far the smallest item to the state in the cost of the trial; all the 
•other expenses will have to be borne, even if the suit results in 
acquittal. These other expenses are likely to be increased many 
fold, because of the fact that the attorney is only striving for 
conviction. Witnesses and jurymen will be summoned regard¬ 
less of cost to the public and regardless of the triviality of the 
offense. There are few cases so doutful that there is no chance 
of winning, and to win means subsistence to the attorney. What 
is to hinder him from beginning proceedings wherever there is 
a chance to win? What is prevent him from summoning a jury 
and a crowd of witnesses wherever there is opportunity for liti¬ 
gation? He has notniug to lose but his time; the state foots 
the bill for the rest. There are always plenty of people who 
will act as complaining witnesses, providing the district attor- 
