NOTES FOR A LAW LECTURE

Written about July 1, 1850

I AM not an accomplished lawyer. I find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein I have failed, as in those wherein I have been moderately successful. The leading rule for a lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labor pertaining to it which can then be done. When you bring a common law-suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. If a law point be involved, examine the books, and note the authority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. The same of defences and pleas. In business not likely to be litigated, ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like,make all examinations of titles, and note them and even draft orders and decrees in advance. The course has a triple advantage: it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labor when once done, performs the labor out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not. Extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer's avenue to the public. However able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make

a speech. And yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speechmaking. If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance.

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule, never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in

advance. Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a fee-note at least not before the consideration service is performed. It leads to negligence and dishonesty negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail.

There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief. Resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.

SELECTIONS FROM THE SPEECH AT PEORIA

October 16, 1854

The Kansas-Nebraska Bill of Senator Douglas passed in May, 1854. On October fourth of that year Lincoln assailed the bill in a great speech at the State Fair held at Springfield, following a speech delivered there by Douglas on October third. Douglas replied on October fifth. Eleven days later Lincoln answered

in his famous speech at Peoria. Douglas then made a pact with Lincoln that neither should speak again in that campaign, agreement which Douglas violated.

an

The Peoria speech has been regarded by historians as one of the most important of Lincoln's public addresses, perhaps because he nowhere else displays so intimate a knowledge of the history of the slavery question. He discusses (1) the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, tracing the effect of slavery upon legislation from the formation of the national government to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and (2) the propriety of restoring the Missouri Compromise.

SLAVERY AS A MORAL ISSUE

BUT one great argument in support of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is still to come. That argument is "the sacred right of self-government." Some poet has said,

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

At the hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, I meet that argument, I rush in, I take that bull by the horns. . . . My faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the principle to communities of men as well as to individuals. I so extend it because it is politically wise as well as naturally just, politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. Here, or at Washington, I would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of Virginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana. The doctrine of self-government is right, — absolutely and eternally right; but it has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I

should rather say that whether it has any application here depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, in that case he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just what he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he, too, shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government, — that is despotism. If the negro is a man, then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.

Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying: "The white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes!"

Well, I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, -the sheet-anchor of American republicanism.

THE EFFECT OF SLAVERY ON DEMOCRACY

WHETHER slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive con