other things which no man could do outside of the courts and be considered a gentleman. Not that all lawyers do this; but many of them do, and rarely incur the censure of the Court in consequence, and pretty uniformly receive the approbation of their clients.

Nevertheless it is not true that lawyers have no code of ethics. All bodies must have bounds; and there are offences, such as taking a client's money under false pretences, for which a judge is permitted to disbar a lawyer; forbidding him any longer to practice in the courts. So, also, there is in the allied profession of war a code of ethics, which renders infamous the man who enters the lines in disguise. He is not treated as an honorable enemy would be, but is tried by drum-head court-martial and gibbeted, and buried without a mark to indicate the spot.

Imagine, if you can, a lawyer when his case is called in court, addressing the judge as follows:

Your Honor, I wish to say a word in refercnce to Mr. Kraft, my associate counsel in this case, as the conditions of his employment and his mode of practice are peculiar, and perhaps unusual; yet my client insists that he shall take part in the conduct of his defence. Mr. Kraft

is a regularly authorized practitioner, according to the laws of this State, but he is a "Slyhooven" lawyer. He belongs to the "Slyhooven school."

The Judge. What is a Slyhooven lawyer? Counsel. I beg your Honor's pardon, but I thought you must have heard of this famous sect in law, although, hitherto, they have not practised in our courts. A Slyhooven lawyer is one who adopts the principles of Slyhooven, a celebrated German jurist, who has written a book upon the subject. He holds that the less the evidence the stronger the testimony, and that if you can make the evidence infinitesimal you are certain to persuade the jury and to win the case; provided, however, that in all cases you use that kind of evidence, which does not antagonize or contradict the evidence presented on the other side. The "hair of the same dog cures," is his cardinal maxim.

Thus, for example, my client being accused of stealing a horse, Mr. Kraft will present to the Court the smallest possible amount of evidence that he did actually steal a horse-the less, the the better for our client. Or if no testimony can be found that he stole a horse, we shall avail ourselves of the next best form of testimony, namely, that he stole something closely resem

bling a horse. Now a mule resembles a horse, but it is not a horse. So we will present an infinitesimal fraction of testimony to prove that he stole a mule.

That, in short, your Honor, will be Mr. Kraft's course of procedure, in so far as he has the management of the case.

The Court. You certainly cannot be serious in what you say, Mr. Dobbins.

Mr. Dobbins.-I certainly am serious, your Honor. A good many lawyers in Germany have tried this system of practice and have proved successful. Some lawyers who were doing little or nothing before, have got rich by it, and there are several reputable lawyers in this city who have invited Mr. Kraft to aid them in the trial of cases, if the courts are once opened to him.

The Court. Well, Mr. Dobbins, this court has only to say, that it cannot waste its time in listening to such nonsense; and that your client will have to go to some other court if he wishes his case tried by these methods.

Mr. Dobbins. Then your Honor proposes to exclude from this court a regularly licensed practitioner of law, and to deprive an humble, but free American citizen of what he considers

his only chance of escaping punishment and perpetual disgrace.

The Court. Yes, this is what I propose to do. Judges have always exercised certain discretionary powers not specifically named in the laws; and one of these is not to permit idiots or lunatics to practise in the courts.

Mr. Dobbins. But, your Honor, we are not idiots or lunatics. Neither Mr. Kraft nor myself believe a word in all this foolery, but our client does; and it has generally been found easy to persuade a jury, composed of the most intelligent citizens, to believe in it, and to induce them to give their verdict in our favor.

The Court. I might have added that the judges have always exercised the right, also, of excluding from the bar self-acknowledged rogues, criminal offenders and self-convicted impostors.

It is our duty, also, not only to protect the court from such insults, but to protect the people as far as possible from imposition, by refusing to give our official countenance and support to impostors.

If you are not ready to try this case without the aid of Mr. Kraft and his peculiar system, the clerk will call the next case on the calendar.

Dr. Warren. Allegory is not argument; but where do you find any thing like a code of ethics in the profession of divinity?

Dr. Putnam. As to the profession of divinity, it is encompassed with a code of ethics as firm and inelastic as a coat of armor.

The canons and rules forbid its priests to teach false doctrines, or doctrines contrary to the teaching of the Church, while they wear the sacerdotal robes. To do otherwise is to challenge censure and expulsion. Outside of the church one may adopt such doctrines as he chooses; and sensible men generally withdraw from the church when they change their religious opinions, rather than incur the chances of being thrust out.

Our medical code is gossamer compared with the iron-clad code of the churches. Think of it, Dr. Warren. Among some of our most numerous and influential religious sects, a clergyman is not permitted to dispense the Gospel of Christ to the people in a church which has not been regularly and officially dedicated by a priest of their own denomination. A man who is not a member of the church may even be denied a Christian burial, unless he applies to the "little church around