|
|
If the Commissary General, Secretary, Clerks of Counties, Ex-
aminer and Surveyors or any of them have Charged Fees the old
Regulation does not Justify, and the Provisions of it really require
Explanation Correction, alteration or Enforcement, a Competent
remedy might easily have been introduced on a Conference, but we
must take the Liberty to remark, that whatever your Informations
and Enquiries and Opinions may be, we have very great Reason to
suspect that the Representation, (let the Design of it be what it
may,) aimed at in your Questions cannot be maintained on just and
legal Grounds.
The Principle you advance is certainly true, that where a Law
expressly regulates and ascertains the Reward to be Paid for a
Service, it ought to be observed, A Principle which Regards not
Persons their Callings or their Professions, but equally extends to
all, and if there be any Reason for Inforcements in particular In-
stances, it results from the Circumstance, that in such Instances,
the Power to extort and address is less resistable than in other, The
Officer without doubt ought to be held to a Strict observance of the
Restrictions Provided to Controul his Conduct, if he does not observe
them he is punishable, but yet there are favourable Opportunities
given, by which Oppression in this Case may be avoided. The Ser-
vice is done on Credit, The Fee for it must be Stated in Writing,
if the Demand be illegal it may be refused and Contested, the Lawyer,
by An Act of Assembly expressed in the Clearest Terms, is Pro-
hibited from asking for demanding receiving or taking any greater
Fee than is thereby Established, on the above Principle he ought to
be held to an observance of this Law. He moreover has it in his
power to oblige the person who wants his Assistance, before the
Business is undertaken to Pay his Demand, Hence he has it more
in his Power than the Officer to extort and Oppress, and therefore if
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
Nov. 20
|
|
|
|
a Difference should be made between them it ought rather to be in
binding the Lawyer with more Strictness than for the Officer, but
though you cannot deny the Existence of the Law, which lays these
Restrictions on the Lawyers, Yet you are of Opinion that he, with
more Power to oppress, ought not to be so Strictly Bound as the
Officer, who has less, because you suppose we Proposed the Amend-
ments to your Bill entitled "An Act to ease the Inhabitants of this
Province in the Payment of Attornies Fees" with a view "to destroy
those of the Profession who have concurred with others in opposing
the Encroachments of Power" If an Observance of the Law would
be really so mischievous as to destroy these Gentlemen, it ought to be
repealed, or rendered less rigorous; for a Law which intends to
bring Destruction upon the Objects of it, without their Fault is
cruel indeed, and a Law that [ought not] to be observed is extremely
injudicious, and therefore ought to be abrogated, and especially as
the Example in Violations of it may have a bad Effect upon the
|
p. 517
|
|
