whatever for the impression, and it does not appear at the last that even his client so understood it. But it seems that " she was disappointed in the amount of his bill." Every lawyer knows that this is the invari able feeling of the woman-client in any case. Women regard it as unmanly to compel them to yield their lawyer much if anything,' even if it is got out of their husbands. Mr. O'Conor had waged a long and costly fight and had scored a great success. He ob tained a very large allowance of alimony for Mrs. Forrest, — some $64,000. He charged her, as I have always understood, some $40,000, which, however, included a considerable outlay for the unavoidable expenses, and a large amount of loans to his client. No lawyer will say that this was excessive, even if it included no loans, especially as every cent of it was wrung from Forrest; but on the other hand no lawyer will pretend that his conduct was " disin terested." He was not " disinterested." He was serving for pay, and he was no more " disinterested " than Brady on the other side. Nor will any lawyer nowadays pretend that he deserves any special credit for those efforts. He simply did his dutylike an intrepid, conscientious and skillful advocate; he amply deserved compensa tion, — and he got it. But that was not the way his worshippers felt about it at the time. Thirty ladies voted him one silver vase, and sixty lawyers another, for his "disinterested" service, in 1852, and Mr. O'Conor accepted them; at a later day, in 1876, this foolish piece of emotion rebounded against Mr. O'Conor. He had been severely criticised in the newspapers for having taken pay when it was " understood " that he was not to have any. This accusation led him at the time to demand an investi gation of his conduct, by the New York City Bar Association, in compliance with which a committee was appointed to hear and determine, but inasmuch as nobody appeared to make any charges, the deter
mination could only result in his complete and undoubtedly deserved exculpation. The entire matter was purely one of business. Mr. O'Conor charged his client interest on his advances and outlay, as he should have done. Perhaps, in 1852, he could not gracefully refuse the vase, but he did not deserve it and should have given no assent, even by silence, to the idea of " disinterested ness." If he deserved a testimonial, Brady deserved one still more, for he advocated the unpopular side, and fought a losing battle from the outset. As to Mrs. Forrest, her notion seemed to be that having ac cepted the vase for being " disinterested," Mr. O'Conor ought not to have asked any, or at all events so much compensation for being interested. In this view the vase would have been indeed an empty honor. Probably in accepting the honor Mr. O'Conor did not for a moment dream that its donors or anybody supposed that he did not intend to be fairly paid for his services, and if he had so supposed he would have refused! but his language was a little unguarded and ambiguous. In the following paragraphs are given some contemporary details of this curious affair, embodied in articles in the " Albany Law Journal," some of which were evidently written by myself. I have not changed my mind about the merits of the matter, al though if it were to be written now I might express myself with a smaller degree of vehemence and satire: — "The article which recently appeared in the New York Times, relating to Charles O'Conor's connection with the well-known Forrest divorce case, has called forth an elaborate defense on the part of Mr. O'Conor, and a demand by him for an investigation of his conduct by the New York Bar Association. The article in question stated, on the apparent authority of Mrs. Forrest, that it was understood when the divorce suit was begun that nothing should be charged for counsel fees; but that of the final judgment of $64,000 in the case, for arrears of alimony, Mr. O'Conor
