Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 03.pdf/57

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ADVOCACY. By J. W. McLot'D. THE common opinion that cases are Remember that legal principles must be won by tricks of advocacy, is erro universal in their application, and that every neous. Juries are usually composed of rea precedent and principle established in any sonable men, anxious to do right. Our one case is authority, and can be invoked judges, with scarcely an exception, are in every other case. The object of the lawlearned in the law, and sincere lovers of is to administer justice so as to punish the truth and justice. guilty and protect the innocent. Newspaper articles denouncing verdicts Law and the administration of justice and reflecting upon courts and the profes must be governed by general and not special sion are generally written by men who are principles. unacquainted with the facts about which Law is a collection of rules, precedents, they write, and who have no correct concep statutes, and principles, which the wisdom tion of legal methods and principles. In and experience of mankind have demon nine cases out of ten, if those same editors strated to be the best under all circum had been in the jury-box and heard the evi stances for the greatest number of people. dence, the arguments of counsel, the in The rules of law are not based upon arbi structions of the court, and watched the trary enactments, but are the results of the conduct and appearance of the witnesses, accumulated wisdom of the ages. Take for they would have rendered the same verdict instance the manner and order of introduc which they criticise and denounce in their ing testimony. There might be cases where papers. As editors, they are writing to it would further the ends of justice to let please the public, pandering to popular the plaintiff introduce part of his witnesses clamor; as jurymen, they would be under and then after the defendant has rested, let oath to act impartially, " and a true verdict him bring in more witnesses of the same render, according to the evidence." kind, on the same subject matter, in rebuttal. A man may be in fact guilty; but if he is But the wisdom and experience of mankind not proven guilty by competent evidence, it has demonstrated that for all kinds of cases is the duty of a court and jury to acquit and at all times the truth can be elicited, him. The law is based on general principles, with more fairness and justice to both par applicable to all cases and all times. The ties, by requiring the plaintiff to introduce experience of men has demonstrated that -all his testimony and then rest, and the the best and safest rule is that a man defendant introduce all his testimony and charged with a crime must be presumed to rest, and then the plaintiff be confined in be innocent until proven guilty, and that he rebuttal to denying any new matter, brought must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable out by the defence. This rule of practice is founded in justice; if it were varied in any doubt, or be acquitted. It would be a dan gerous precedent to say that a man could be one case, it would establish a precedent that convicted on popular clamor, on a general would work injustice, and in many cases would be nothing less than legalized rob belief that he was guilty. It might do jus bery. If that rule were otherwise, the tice in one case, and be the means of pun ishing a guilty man; but once established, it plaintiff could introduce one or two wit becomes a precedent, and would be invoked nesses, and the defendant only having to meet the case made by the plaintiff, would in every trial, and be used to convict the in introduce three or four witnesses and then nocent as well as the guilty.