THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL: A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, JULY 7, 1877. CURRENT TOPICS. alty. Several other countries, where a milder punishment was substituted for death, were cited as showing a like result. The experience of the State of Maine might have been cited to the same effect. Capital punishment was in 1837 substantially abolished there, by making HE advocates of the abolition of capital punish-it optional with the governor whether it should be THE ment have attempted to bring their hobby into the English House of Commons, but have been unable to do so. Sir Eardley Wilmot introduced a very mild resolution, hoping, no doubt, to thus get up a discussion upon the subject, which could not injure and might help the cause he advocated. The resolution was to the effect "That while it is not inflicted or not in any given case. Most of the governors exercised the option in favor of leniency, and from 1834 to 1864 no execution took place in that State. Murders however did not cease, but became alarmingly frequent. The death penalty in its ancient rigor was restored in 1875, and two persons executed thereunder. During the year succeeding possible at the present time to remove the penalty but one homicide occurred in Maine and the person of death altogether from the statute book, it is desirable to consider whether the laws under which offenders are liable to capital punishment should not undergo revision." This however led to the introduction of an amendment by an opponent of the death penalty, who wanted no half way measures, to the effect "That it is expedient to abolish the penalty of death, and to substitute for that penalty, in the case of murder, penal servitude for life; in the case of high treason, at the discretion of the court, penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than seven years." The vote was 50 for the amendment and 61 for the motion, while 155 voted on the opposite side. The attorney-general met the proponents of the resolution by the most effective weapons in such a discussion, namely, statistics. In the earlier history of the movement against capital punishment the advocates of abolition had all the statistics, such as they were, upon their side. That is the penalty of death had not prevented crime and presumptively would not in the future prevent it, but it could not be asserted that a milder penalty would not be effective, because a trial had not been made. But now several countries have tried the experiment and the result has been that crime has increased instead of diminished. This has been the case in Italy where homicide became frequent immediately upon the abolition of the death penVOL. 16.- No. 1. who committed it immediately killed himself. The next year the opponents of capital punishment were able to procure a repeal of the law, and in the twelve months succeeding there were a dozen murders. As this seems to be a uniform experience it would indicate that a severe penalty attached to homicide prevents it more certainly than a lighter one. The argument that it is certainty not severity that prevents crime and that a milder punishment is more certain to be inflicted than a severe one is the strong one against capital punishment, and this is met by the results of experience, which show that under the death penalty murders are much less frequent than when another form of punishment exists. Our attention was called the other day to an advertisement in a legal journal wherein an individual professing to be learned in the law, offered his services or rather his advice to such as desired it, without compensation. This to the careless observer would appear to be a charitable offer on the part of one who possessed the skill and acquirements necessary for the successful conduct of a litigated matter, but who was not dependent upon the receipts of his calling for his daily bread, to devote himself to the service of those who were unable to employ counsel that must be paid. Without some which, we suppose, is meant that one of the parties may kill the other in a duel or street fight. As we look at it, that result would be much less serious than what has already happened. The gentlemen who engaged in this melee have done a serious injury to the reputation of the bar of California, and indeed to that of the whole country. Not so much indeed by the first sudden burst of anger as by the continuance of the struggle after time and opportunity had been given for the cooling of their passions. The court also treated the matter too lightly. The parties, or one of them at least, in the first instance committed a contempt that was deserving of something more than censure. In this neighborhood an apology to the court would have been demanded, and perhaps a severe fine imposed. Some allowance, perhaps, ought to be made for the difference in surroundings, but the courts and bar in California can no more tolerate such incidents than we can here. knowledge of the world this would be a reasonable is feared that the affair "may result seriously," by conclusion. But the existence of other advertisements in various papers offering something for nothing leads us to doubt the entirely benevolent purpose of this advertisement. In reading it there occurs to our mind the extremely generous offer of the retired clergyman, whose sands of life have nearly run out, to furnish gratis an unfailing remedy for consumption if the address of the one desiring it be sent to the office of the advertiser at "Station D, Bible House"; or perhaps the equally charitable offer to send to the readers of a given paper $5.00 worth of jewelry upon receipt of a small sum to pay expense of packing and postage or expressage. Then there is a strange likeness in this offer to that in those advertisements wherein the liberal counsel promises to make no charge unless successful, or of another who inserts his card in papers a thousand miles away from his place of business, informing the world at large that there will be no publicity in any business intrusted to him, and that payment will be conditional on success, without particularly stating what the business is. We do not say that the person who advertises that he gives advice upon legal matters without charge is influenced to do so by any other than the most excellent motives, but all advertisements of this nature are suspicious and should not be admitted into the columns of a legal journal. All professional notices which announce any thing more than the ordinary business or the ordinary methods of doing it are contrary to the rules of propriety and should not be countenanced. The County Court of Los Angelos, California, was the scene, a couple of weeks ago, of one of those rare occurrences which now and then disgrace the legal tribunals of the newer States, and which in the judgment of foreigners, to a certain extent, affect the reputation of the whole American bar. Two lawyers, the newspapers say prominent ones, one being styled Judge and the other Colonel, became involved in a quarrel about the admission of certain evidence, when the Colonel shook his finger in the face of the Judge. This not satisfying his anger, at the next session of the court he struck the Judge, whereupon the Judge knocked the Colonel down. The sons of the respective combatants, who, we presume, were also lawyers, as they were within the bar, followed the paternal example and engaged in a fight, but the sheriff interfered and cut short the combat between the juniors. The judge who presided over the court ordered the removal of the contending parties, and forthwith adjourned his sitting. This did not terminate the difficulty, for when the court again convened the contestants, old and young, appeared with reinforcements and began to fight again a cane, a cowhide and a revolver now coming into play. The court was thereupon adjourned for the day. The newspapers say that it -- A question of some interest to the profession Justice Westbrook, in the case of Foster v. Newcame up in New York city last week, before Mr. borough. At the trial of the case before a referee, two attorneys, members of the bar association, were called on to testify as to what took place before them as a committee investigating charges against the plaintiff before the association. The witnesses refused to answer, claiming that the information sought was privileged and it would be dishonorable to make it public. The motion was made to compel them to answer, but Judge Westbrook declined to entertain it. Whether the communications made to the witnesses, as an investigating committee, were privileged may be a matter of doubt but they ought to be upon the same ground that communications made to arbitrators are. See 1 Greenl. Ev, § 249; Johnson v. Durant, 4 C. & P. 327; Ellis v. Soltau, Ib. n. a; Habershon v. Troby, 3 Esp. 38; Anonymous, 3 Atk. 644. Scotland is not governed by the rules of the common law, consequently, the system of legal training in vogue there must be in many cases different from that with which we have here been familiar. There is, however, one thing that we had heretofore supposed the teachers of jurisprudence everywhere to agree in, and that is, that feelings of national or partisan prejudice should not be inculcated as a part of the course of legal study. But Professor Lorimer, of the Glasgow University, does not seem to be of that mind, for in his introductory lecture to the class of public law in that institution, which is printed at length, in the Scottish Law Magazine, for June, he takes occasion to say some very severe things in reference to the condition of affairs in this country, which entirely misrepresent |