he comes to the trial table. According to one of the most fundamental laws of human ity, a person invariably marshals his facts in a way most advantageous to his own side of the controversy. It is, indeed, no uncommon occurrence for a man to enter a law office, and from his statement one is verily inclined to believe that he had been led as a lamb to the slaughter. It is nothing less than an en thronement of violated innocence. But, alas! too late the credulous solicitor discovers that in this instance, as in others, he has seen in a glass but dimly. When the opposite party begins to give his version of the testimony, the lawyer is more than likely to change his notions as to his client's innocence, — certainly as to the aforesaid individual's veracity. But my readers must not imagine this article is an inspired plea. I have not been engaged by the legal profession to elaborate these points. This paper is simply a plain narration of incontestible facts. And since this is true, the question arises, in the lan guage of a New York celebrity, " What will you do about it? " The statement was re corded at the beginning of this dissertation that we live in an age of reforms. Their number is already great, but it is always an irresistible temptation to a mortal being to be a benefactor of mankind. The writer has been infected with this contagion. And as I have several suggestions that lie along the line of improvement, I desire to make some addenda. My proposed improvements would be about as follows : — First. That no client of a wicked or
deceitful heart ever come to a lawyer's office. Second. That all persons in doubt of the righteousness of their- cause examine and cross-examine themselves most rigidly be fore they invoke legal advice. Third. That, to guard against accidents, all lawyers add to the inscriptions already on their shingles this legend : " None but con scientious people wanted here." Fourth. That each attorney keep a squire penned up in one corner of his office to test the candor of a client, when such heroic measures appear necessary. Fifth. That all clients who deceive or otherwise misinform a lawyer be sent to the penitentiary for twelve months, with no hope of pardon, for what is erroneously called good behavior. Sixth. That all clients be put on oath to state the entire case, with no reservations. Seventh. That the community, jointly and severally, solemnly promise through its official representatives, giving suitable bond, to patronize a lawyer who is sufficiently im bued with ideas of rectitude to dismiss a case, in spite of the awful maledictions of his patron, when he discovers in the course of the testimony that his client's case is not permeated with Simon-pure equity. * Eighth. Lastly, but by no means least, that our beneficent government then devote some of that perplexing surplus to the estab lishment of a retreat for the future mainte nance of those unfortunate bipeds who were so unhappy as to study the law and attempt to realize the profits thereof anterior to the inauguration of this great millennium.
