one physician against another. Summoned to court as an adverse witness, the doctor goes the limit even to his own injury to protect his fellow practitioner. For this he is deserving of credit. He gives a loyalty that is appreciated by the whole world. To him should be given honor for faithfulness to his professional brother.

Adverting to the lawyer, we are reminded of the language of Mr. Justice Brett of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in re Sitton, reported in 177 Pacific 555. Truly does he say:

"The lawyer's life must be one of fidelity and stern integrity. For his client's all is placed in his hands; his life, his property, and his honor, are intrusted to his attorney, and he must guard all this well. For his fidelity to this trust means more than the mere plaudits of the curious. It may mean a life saved, a son given back to the bosom of his family; that the tottering form of the old man of the home may be handed to the grave in peace; that the daily bread may not be taken from the widow's table: and that the orphan's cheek may not grow pallid with hunger. It often means all this, and more, to be a conscientious, skillful lawyér; and the cheeks of him who besmirches this high and virtuous calling should be made to burn with shame."

Yet too often it is found that with or without reason the city legal practitioner goes out of his way to do injury to his brother-in-law. It is true though denied, and the cheeks of the world burn with the wrong so inflicted. The Detroit or Chicago lawyer openly preaches of the ethics of his noble profession but he will at the same time be too often guilty of dishonorable acts and indulge in insidious practices in order to bring discredit on a fellow practitioner. It will probably be a covert act whether done under official position or in the seclusion of the office, is an act of treachery and unprofessional conduct just the

same.

Again, with those who know better, there are ways indulged in that are as devious as those of the Chinese poker player which are calculated to bring business to the attorney guilty of the practices and in corresponing measure to take business from another lawyer. Under cover of former position, ex-prosecuting attorneys and lecturers in colleges and universities, go about from door to door displaying the wares they once had in order that those who may need to buy will be attracted—though deceived as to what is now on the market.

Look this person over, and what is seen. A buzzard in human form, whose face shows the crafty, hungry, wishfull expression of one who is tired of waiting. Dignified we probably find him; never constructive but always the destroyer. Scattering hairs hide the lack of

a resolute chin, and serve to divorce the lower part of a weak face from the throat below. How truly Dickens pictured Uriah Heep. There are many of these today; they are active members of churches, of bar associations, of clubs, who by good right should be peddling lead pencils or selling Bibles to the Patagonians.

But if a man is willing to devote himself to things really intellectual and worth while and dedicate himself to public service of a high order, he will find now in the law a great opportunity for work that will bring him the satisfaction that comes of things well done. The profession gives opportuntity not only for public service, but for service to the individual client, in wise counsel in reconciling his differences with his neighbor, or, in case his differences are irreconcible, in placing the litigation of the controversy on a high plane.

The lawyer used to have an income that would compare favorably with that of almost anyone in the community. Today the lawyer can never approach the reward in material things that comes to men in many businesses.

Great lawyers will always have a great influence on the destinies of their country. The future of the law depends on drawing back into the profession the men who have joined in the mad race for wealth. When social and industrial conditions become more settled and the opportunities for making great fortunes have passed and people turn again to the higher and more intellectual things, the brains of the country will gradually come back to the law and the profession will occupy a more dominating position again.

The chief development of the law is on the equity side, the application of the flexible rules of equity to the problems of modern life. The common law is pretty well developed and understood. All the development in a lawyers' pratice today is in equity.

Equity is merely a branch of the law. It is the term we apply to that body of rules or customs which grew up in ages past in the ecclesiastical and chancery courts to meet situations when the hard and fast rules of the common law could no longer be adapted to new problems. When the cause of complaint was merely the violation of a promise or the infringement of a right the common law courts could well deal with it; but when it was sought to prevent wrongs for which there might not be an adequate remedy the common law found itself helpless.

Accordingly, the chancellor, to prevent injustice, issued an order to prevent its being done, which was the origin of the modern injunct

ion-a remedy unknown to the common law. So, too, when a trustee dealt wrongfully with the property contained in his trust, there was no procedure known to the common law to correct the wrong; so the chancellor, his conscience being shocked by the wrongdoing, summoned the trustee before him to an accounting of his trust. Out of this beginning has grown the vast jurisdiction of the equity courts in the regulation of the fiduciary relations and enforcing fiduciary duties.

We sometimes hear people say, "that may be law, but it isn't equity," indicating a belief that equity means something other than law, but of course this is not the fact. Equity is a branch of the administration of law. It rules of conduct are no less fixed and certain, but its rules of procedure adapt themselves wonderfully to the varying problems which arise with the vast and complex development of commercial and industrial relations of modern times.

The abstracter of titles is depended on to protect the property vested interests of his community. He is looked to by the widow and orphan, by the farmer and banker, to see that their titles are secure, that the records are ship shape, that all conveyances contain the proper clauses, mortgages witnessed and duly acknowledged, recorded and indexed. Often the abstracter is called on to act as trustee for estates and guardian for wards. He is the most depended upon man among men and he rarely fails to do his whole duty. We have to discover the first case where the professional title man has failed to live up to all honorable demands made upon him.

Yet the abstracter lives too much to himself. He is jealous of his work. Too self-assertive, caring not enough for the general welfare of the profession. He is generally satisfied to let well enough alone. So long as he meets with no losses, why should he care what happens to his fellow abstracter. "Let the other fellow do it so long as it does not interfere with me." Of all professions or trades, the grocer, the candle stick maker, the peanut promoter even, all have meabstracter is the only one who has no official paper or magazine. The diums which are loyally supported, but the title man for some reason cares not to keep up to the times so long as it costs a few dollars per annum. This is not true of all, but of about fifty per cent. There are over 7000 title men and abstracters in the United States, not quite half of these are subcribers to The Lawyer and Banker though it is

known and recognized as being the only publication devoted to title or abstract work. The man who fails is a laggard in all things.

POORLY PAID POSTAL CLERKS.

The United National Association of Post Office Clerks is making a strenuous effort to complete its tabulation of salary statistics in time to present the printed copies of same to the Salary Commission and Congress.

Extensive research work has been undertaken covering a period from 1907 to 1919. The officers of the association were, of course, familiar with the many handicaps placed on post office clerks and the woefully inadequate salaries in all divisions or departments. But the organization was not prepared for the amazing conditions the statistics so far gathered show to exist.

no

No one, who would give a moment's thought to the subject, will or can deny that all the activities of this great people, this grand nation, no matter what they be, depend more upon the efficiency and intelligence of the employees in the post office than they do on any other simllar number of our citizens. For business of all kinds, big and little, promoting, producing, distributing, buying, financing, advertising matter what phase, the postal service is to such business, analogously speaking, what the arteries and blood vessels carrying energy, life and fuel, are to the body. Clog up or reduce the efficiency of the blood system and the human body becomes anaemic. Clog up or reduce the efficiency of the postal employee and the resulting business anaemia will lead inevitably to a stagnant and bankrupt nation.

Because of this intimate and delicate relation the postal employee holds to the population, it is hard indeed to understand just why these same employees are so little considered. It can only be attributed to the characteristic happy-go-lucky spirit typified in the great cities of our country, which spirit takes much for granted and seems to abhor looking too deeply into any subject; and again to the false pride or undue modesty of the postal employees themselves who, wishing to appear as fortunate as the average of their acquaintances and fellow citizens, bear their troubles in silence, uncomplainingly, and pretend that their income is larger than it is in the hope of raising themselves in the estimation of their associates.

WHERE ARE WE AT? AND "WHERE

DO WE GO FROM HERE?"

By Oscar J. Smith of the New York Bar.

One hundred and thirty two years ago our wise old forefathers met in convention at Philadelphia, and after mature deliberation and prolonged debates, adopted the Constitution of the United States of America. It is interesting to note the preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America."

It is also interesting to note the first three articles of that Constitution:

Article 1. provides that "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives," and prescribes the qualifications of members, methods of election, powers, etc.

Article 2, provide that "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America," and defines his qualifications, duties and powers,-among them the "Power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties."

Article 3, provides that "The judical power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," etc.

Thus the legislative, executive and judicial departments of government were made seperate and distinct, each from the other two, and each designed to be supreme in its own sphere. And for the first century and a quarter of our national life each remained so; but of late years there has developed a tendency on the part of the executive to break away from those safe and sane provisions of our fundamental law and to encroach more and more upon the powers of the legislative, substituting methods somewhat resembling but going far beyond those of the English ministry in its dealings with parliament. It is not the purpose of this writer to enter into a discussion of the