476
defence of the accused. To undertake his defence, however, is not to decide to make every conceivable effort to save him from conviction; that might include, at last resort, the purchase of perjured testimony in his behalf, which even the most hardened might resort to, but would hardly seek to justify. But to secure to him those advantages and safeguards which the law, in mercy, offers him, is permissible and just. If more than this be expected or required, but one honest course is open — to decline peremptorily the proffered employment and forego the longedfor fee. Honest men decline opportunities for dishonest gain in every walk in life. However, by declining to espouse a cause
because there seems to be ground for be lieving the party guilty, the lawyer would usurp the function of both judge and jury. The Courts appoint attorneys for accused persons in extremity, and where the issue is life or death, counsel thus appointed cannot refuse the trust, so jealous is the law of the security of its subjects, and so averse to judgment against anyone unheard. Sydney Smith justifies the acceptance of any ordin ary case that offers, on the ground that truth is best arrived at by the earnest efforts of opposing advocates, and this proposition is no doubt true enough if the contestants use only legitimate weapons. — American Jour nal of Polities.
sg>
^w
-
<e^
