eally no such thing as "the lust of lying:"
falsehoods are told for advantage--commonly a shadowy and illusory
advantage, but one distinctly enough had in mind. Discerning no
opportunity to promote his interest, tickle his vanity or feed a grudge,
the habitual liar will tell the truth. If lawyers would study human
nature with half the assiduity that they give to resolution of hairs
into their longitudinal elements they would be better fitted for service
of the devil than they have now the usefulness to be.
I have always asserted the right and expediency of cross-examining
attorneys in court with a view to testing their credibility. An
attorney's relation to the trial is closer and more important than that
of a witness. He has more to say and more opportunities to deceive
the jury, not only by naked lying, but by both _suppressio veri_ and
_suggestio falsi_. Why is it not important to ascertain his credibility;
and if an inquiry into his private life and public reputation will
assist, as himself avers, why should he not be put upon the grill and
compelled to sweat out the desired incrimination? I should think it
might give good results, for example, to compel him to answer a few
questions touching, not his private life, but his professional. Somewhat
like this:
"Did you ever defend a client, knowing him to be guilty?"
"What was your motive in doing so?"
"But in addition to your love of fair play had you not also the hope and
assurance of a fee?"
"In defending your guilty client did you declare your belief in his
innocence?"
"Yes, I understand, but necessary as it may have been (in that it helped
to defeat justice and earn your fee) was not your declaration a lie?"
"Do you believe it right to lie for the purpose of circumventing
justice?--yes or no?"
"Do you believe it right to lie for personal gain--yes or no?"
"Then why did you do both?"
"A man who lies to beat the laws and fill his purse is--what?"
"In defending a murderer did you ever misrepresent the character, acts,
motives and intentions of the man that he murdered--never mind the
purpose and effect of such misrepresentation--yes or no?"
"That is what we call slander of the dead, is it not?"
"What is the most accurate name you can think of for one who slanders
the dead to defeat justice and promote his own fortune?"
"Yes, I know--such practices are allowed by the 'ethics' of your
profession, but can you point to any evidence that they
|