Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/591

 450

THE GREEN BAG

publication in a German newspaper, prob ably on account of the Teutonic habit of reading a paper from the front page straight through the want ads. It must be obvious, however, that the newspaper of general circulation, as first denned, fulfills the needs of the situation completely, since anyone informed by palmistry or astrology of the pendency of litigation affecting his interests, commenced by a tall blond gentleman, knows just where to look for a more concrete statement of time and place. In the absence, however, of any such super natural opposition, complainant's solicitors normally are enabled to sublet the defense of a few friendly defendants, default the rest on service by publication, and proceed stealthily to final decree under cover of darkness such as Egypt never knew. Now it may be the impression of some of those present that I am endeavoring to discredit this valuable practice. Far be that from my purpose. On the contrary, I wish to propose an extension of the procedure. It seems to me that the necessity of notifying parties defendant has been a barrier to the advancement of equity up the mountain-side toward the summit of poetic justice. I would advocate the prac tical elimination of defense by treating all defendants as unknown owners. Why not simply state, without mentioning names, that all persons having any interest in such and such property or situation shall appear on a certain day or forever hold their peace? If a man does not know what his interests are, he ought to lose them. If ignorance of the law, contained in several thousand reports and several hundred statutes, is no excuse, certainly ignorance as to one's own property rights should not be permitted to delay justice. This extension of equity's sway would permit the wronged individual or outraged community to check speedily the abuses of undefined masses of men and capital. Think of the wondrous relief to be afforded by an injunction restraining anyone from

raising the price of any food-stuff without permission of the Court! Think of the ease of trust-busting were it possible to enjoin, once and for all, past and future combina tions in restraint of trade, leaving the fear of contempt hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over the entire business world! Were such procedure established there is one bill which I would like to have a part in drawing and filing. The cause would be entitled " The Lawyers of the United States vs. Clients in General." The bill would state, as our grievance, that we, the lawyers aforesaid, have, ever since the adoption of the Constitution, striven manfully to protect and defend the interests of our clients; that we have, in their behalf, devised and created, annulled and abrogated laws, decisions, fundamental rights and privileges; that we have forsaken the family fireside, the cardtable, the golf-links, and even the churches, have deprived ourselves of the companion ship of wives, children, sweethearts, and friends of boyhood days to hasten to the aid of our clients when in distress, in custody of the law, under cloud of injunction, or in pressing need of voluntary bankruptcy; that we have been loyal and faithful to our trusts and other wicked corporations; that we have done all of these things in the interests of justice, humanity, righteousness, and a small reward, to wit, a fee; that, therefore, what we have done has been done for others — whereby we should be known as the amalgamated altruists of the world and our clients should have been grateful and pleased with the services rendered and have said no more. The bill would go on to show that never theless our ingrate clients often charge that we draw documents, pleadings, and other legal papers in language so obscure and indecisive that they cannot tell what the papers which they have signed mean and must employ other lawyers and finally appeal to the courts for information; and that they often charge that we use tricks and strange devices to sustain bad cases; to