Charles look $40,000, and the Attorney, Mr. Chase, $19,000, thus leaving her but $5,000. Mrs. Forrest states that in Mr. O 'Conor's bill there were some charges for loans made to her; and while expressing her gratitude for his services, she says that she was entirely surprised at the course which he took in making his charges for professional services. In this connection the article in the ' Times' states that it was understood by the public during the pendency of the Forrest case that Mr. O'Conor's services were gratuitous; and that for this act he received great credit and honor. Some of the most estimable ladies of New York, and many members of the Bar, expressed their admiration for his unselfish course by presenting him with testimonials. "Mr. O'Conor's reply to the article relating to his connection with the Forrest case is marked with the usual forcible and dramatic style of its author. So far as we have examined his defense, he denies that he agreed to serve in the Forrest case gratuitously, or that he supposed the public or Mrs. Forrest thought he was so doing. He admits the bill of nearly $40,000, but states that the greater part was for sums loaned Mrs. Forrest when she was in need, and for expenses incurred for her. He claims that he was exceedingly generous to her, and to her friends. Much of Mr. O'Conor's defense is taken up with matters of very remote relevancy to the real issue. A committee of investigation was appointed by the Bar Association, consisting of Judge Bosworth, Judge Mitchell, John E. Parsons, Joseph H. Choate, Benjamin D. Silliman, and William M. Evarts. This committee will undoubtedly do ample justice to Mr. O'Conor's case. If the charges are substantiated, Mr. O'Conor has already indicated what the penalty should be. He says : ' If I am guilty of what is charged . . . I ought to be expelled from membership in your Association, and from the Bar itself, as a disgrace to both.' " — Vol. /j, p. 2jg. "The Committee of the Bar Association ap pointed to investigate the charges against Charles O'Conor, reported on Tuesday evening, that there were no matters before them to consider except what Mr. O'Conor himself had presented, and no accusers, and they did not advise the constitution of any tribunal for the purposes of investigation. The report of this committee was
O'Conor.
5
objected to quite vehemently by Mr. O'Conor. He demanded the fullest investigation, and said that he thought it was for the interest of the profession that the matter should be thoroughly looked into. The report of the committee recommended that Mrs. Forrest be invited to make a communication on the subject to the Bar Association. Mr. O'Conor objected to having the Association call upon Mrs. Forrest to bring charges against him. He said that his con troversy was with the newspapers which had printed the charges. After much discussion which, as far as we can learn, was largely con fined to Mr. O'Conor himself, a resolution was passed by the Bar Association whereby a new Committee was appointed to 'investigate the charges referred to in Mr. O'Conor's statement, and to invite the accusers before them.' "Lawyers are notoriously inexact and careless in keeping their own accounts. Mr. O'Conor seems to be an exception, or possibly he has had the assistance of an extremely mathematical managing clerk. We find in his account against Mrs. Forrest that he charges the lady, with $2.86 for several years' interest on I7 paid for a copy of an opinion; and with $1.02 interest on $4.41 for "cash, postages, etc."; and with $1.45 in terest for one month on $250 paid for counsel; and with twenty cents interest on $7.50 paid for printing points! After this exhibition of thrift and exactness, how can Mr. O'Conor claim to have been' disinterested' in his conduct of Mrs. Forrest's case? But who would have suspected such shop-keeping care in the descendant of the Irish Kings? "No one denies Mr. O'Conor's right to demand pay in the Forrest case. The question is, did he sanction the belief, which undoubtedly obtained, that he was working gratuitously? Mr. O'Conor claimed at the time to have been acting ' dis interestedly,' and on account of this ' disin terestedness ' allowed himself to be presented with a silver vase from thirty ladies of New York, and with a silver pitcher from his profes sional brethren. The thirty ladies in the pre sentation letter spoke of his ' noble conduct,' his ' generous espousal ' of his client's cause, and his ' chivalrous defense ' of the weak. It is apparent that the writers supposed that Mr. O'Conor had been working gratuitously. This
