logical argument and persuasive reasoning; in the evident lack of real legal learning; in provincialisms and educational deficiencies, and even in the behavior and bearing of the men. There are at the bar of every State of the Union men of great learning and cul ture and power, the leaders and ornaments of the community, but they are such by force of their own inherent qualities, and in spite of, rather than because of, the profession to which they belong. I would not, if I could, introduce into this country the English sys tem of a divided profession, though there is very much to be said in its favor. It secures a high standard of attainment and character, and an independence of spirit, as far removed from blustering on the one hand as from ser vility on the other. But its disadvantages also arc great, — so great as, in the estima tion of many men even in England, to out weigh the advantages. The attorney has usually been with the matter in dispute from its inception, known all its phases and com plications as they have arisen, become fa miliar with all the facts and all the evidence, and (other things being equal) no one so well as he could present them from his client's point of view to the court and jury that is to judge of them. But his mouth is closed. He must transfer all he knows to paper, although to do so may require scores, sometimes hundreds, of sheets, and occupy many days or weeks of labor. Of this vast mass of writing, several copies must then be made. These copies being delivered to counsel, all the knowledge of the case they give must be transferred from the brief to the minds and memories of the counsel, and however elaborately or carefully the brief may have been prepared, this process of transference must be at the best a very im perfect one, omitting very many details well known to the attorney, which, though they sec-med too small for lengthy mention in the brief, may, as the trial develops, become all important to the client's success. But the attorney is not permitted to offer a word of
information or explanation save by whisper ing to his counsel, who, having his mind fully occupied, may be quite impatient of such interruption. No one who has not witnessed it can imagine how much of humiliating re proof and rejection an attorney may have to take from his own counsel, before the eyes and in the hearing of his client, during the course of an important and exciting trial. Some counsel, indeed, seem to delight in and give full rein to this faculty of reproof and snubbing. Then of course, each coun sel briefed is also fcc-cd, and these fees form the main items in the costs of a trial. As a general rule, more than half the costs of a protracted trial in which three counsel are briefed is for the briefs and fees of counsel. They often exceed the attorney's fees, the court and jury fees, and the allowances to witnesses all put together. And this matter of the increased cost of litigation is not the only nor the greatest ob jection to the system. The attorney is by it belittled and degraded. In London, more than in the provinces (for in the latter coun sel is not so readily accessible), the attorney is little more than a medium of communica tion between the client and counsel. He gives no opinion but "takes counsel's opin ion," for which purpose he must prepare a "case for opinion," and make copies of all documents referred to (for counsel object to receive originals), and deliver his case for opinion duly "marked "to counsel's clerk. He draws no pleadings, but sends instruc tions to counsel to " settle " them, which means to draw them. He trusts not to his own judgment at any single stage of the case, but at every stage is advised by coun sel, and when the case is, or seems to be, ripe for trial, the incipient brief is submitted to the junior counsel to "advise onevidence"; and the scale of costs to be allowed on taxa tion provides for all this. Indeed, the law as it exists to-day makes it absolutely necessary for an attorney thus to instruct counsel at every stage unless he is willing to deprive
