LAWYERS AND CORPORATE CAPITALIZATION the idea of his immunity from the necessity of earning an income, certainly do not dis please large masses of the American people. This is a long prelude to the subject of my address to-day; but it is not irrelevant. The relations of great corporations to the lawyers who have advised them have some times, perhaps often, seemed sinister to the American people. I know, as no doubt you do, enough of that body of lawyers to realize that among them are men of all kinds; and that some are merely acute and high-class janizaries whose consciences are for hire with their professional abilities. They are, however, exceptions. It is my long and deliberate belief that, in respect of disin terested wisdom on public questions or of a high and rigorous standard of morals for public trusts and the duties of citizenship, no men can be found in any calling superior, on the average, to lawyers, including even the men who have professionally served corpo rate interests. To say the contrary would disparage the discernment of the corpora tions even more than it would the morality of the lawyers. The present Secretary of State of the United States, for instance, at the time of his appointment to his present position represented perhaps as many cor porate interests as any American lawyer. It is easy for members of the Bar, as until recently it was easy for every intelligent American, to understand that all his re tainers, direct or indirect, have been given up and that to-day he holds but one re tainer, and that from the people of the United States. To him as to any true lawyer the contrary idea would be abhor rent. If in any public matter he had, when in private life, acted for private interests, upon that matter he would clearly and frankly state his committal and take care that upon that matter the public was served by some one free of any committal. The error, if any, on the part of Secretary Root ought to be, and no doubt is, the error of "leaning backwards." Indeed it is easy for lawyers to realize, as the public generally
603
used to realize, that, even in the relations of public interests to corporate plans and ambitions, the service to the government of the United States or of any of the states, of men themselves thoroughly familiar with corporate plans and procedure, may be of inestimable value. That we may doubtless assume to have been the case in the rela tions of President Roosevelt with Secretary Root, or with Mr. Knox who, when lately the Attorney General, argued the Northern Securities case for the United States. But, easy as it would be to cite many and shining examples like Mr. Root or Mr. Knox, the fact remains that the Bar has, through its vastly increased representation of corporate interests, lost, whether deservedly or not, an appreciable part of its just and long time hold upon the public sentiment of the American people. Nor would the facts justify us if we were to deny that for this there is, at the least, some ground. A lawyer may very justly present to a legis lative committee or to a governor an argu ment in behalf of any plan of a railroad corporation, or for any special interest, so long as he speaks confessed and definitely for his client, putting his client's view, but putting it fairly and truthfully. His client may be right or wrong; but in either case he performs a useful function in no way incon sistent with his perfectly independent and trustworthy devotion to the public inter ests. When, however, it has happened, as it sometimes has, and, I am sorry to say, more often than we could wish, that a lawyer addressing the public or public officers, and assuming the guise of disinterested concern for the public welfare, has really and truly spoken in behalf of undisclosed clients whose retainers were secretly in his pocket, he has done not only something which is inconsis tent with the flawless integrity belonging to the true lawyer, but something which ought to be abhorrent to every right thinking man . Whether it be in executive office or in Con gress, or as a candidate, or upon the stump, a lawyer dealing with a public question in
