The Lawyer Problem in Government
An editorial critique arguing that the dominance of legal professionals in government stifles social progress and protects vested corporate interests.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
President Taft is a lawyer, and of his cabinet seven out of nine are lawyers. In no other country do courts exercise the powers they do in the United States. They set aside statutes enacted by Congress and the state legislatures and enjoin executive action. The writ of injunction has been so enlarged that few phases of government are exempt from their reach. The courts may take away the liberty of a citizen if his acts, although in strict accord with statutes, are in conflict with a judge's decree. In our judgment, the failure of government in this country to be progressive and its failure to meet the expectations of the common people are due to the undue influence of lawyers. Their education and professional life have dealt chiefly in precedents; their criterion is not 'What is right?' but 'What is established?' While other fields have made enormous progress, the administration of law lags far behind.
“The lawyer's vision is backward—not forward. His criterion is not 'What is right?' but 'What is established?'”
This 1909 critique of the 'lawyer class' in power echoes modern frustrations with the legalistic roadblocks to legislative reform. It highlights a perennial American tension: whether government should be run by those who study the past or those who seek to solve modern problems.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.