Fifty years in Wall Street

by Henry Clews

This new method of settling disputes would do away with the farce of giving bonds in many cases, which is another great source of annoyance, and which, after all, only amounts to a mere formality in a large number of cases, and in many others a very hollow and fraudulent pretense, as many of the bondsmen are only men of straw, and though technically qualified, are not in reality responsible for the obligations undertaken by them.

When good, reliable sureties are offered, in many instances they are put through an irritating course of examination in relation to their private affairs, much of which is entirely unnecessary, and only designed to perplex and annoy them. They are thus obliged to expose matters relating to their private business, about which the public have no right to know anything, and they are often examined in such a way, as if they themselves were on trial, and were attempting criminal concealment of something that they had a right to disclose. A good deal of this arises from the impudent, unmannerly style of certain lawyers, who treat a man as a criminal suspect, when he has no interest in the case whatever, but has simply come voluntarily forward to assist a friend in trouble.

This is all, however, in the present method of procedure, connected with the machinery of so-called justice, and this kind of abuse has been carried to such an extent in some of the instances just referred to, that very few responsible parties, who know anything about the modus operandi of qualifying as a surety, are willing to respond to such calls of friendship. Hence, one of the difficulties in obtaining good bondsmen, and an additional reason why the professional straw men are so plentiful.

It probably helps the business of the latter, between whom and the abusive lawyers there may be an understanding on “boodle” principles.

I shall relate an instance which I consider worthy of permanent record illustrative of the matters to which I here refer, in which my firm was victimized.

On the occasion referred to, my firm sued a client for a just debt of sixteen thousand dollars. The case was sent to a referee, whose standing, in his particular line, was unquestioned at the time, and very few men, in his circle, had better family connections. He stood high in his profession and both sideS were satisfied with the choice. The case was very long and tedious, having been drawn out to a most provoking extent by encumbering the record with immense piles of irrelevant matter. The renewed calls for legal fees on both sides were numerous and vexatious, yet there was no help but graceful submission to the payment of this tribute.

After a number of years it was reluctantly conceded by the lawyers that the evidence was all in on both sides. The litigants breathed heavy and responsive sighs of relief, each side being confident of victory.

A short time prior to the close of the case, the referee spoke to me, gratuitously offering his advice to settle the case, as he said he intended to give a decision adverse to my firm. To this I demurred, and expressed my determination to fight the case to the bitter end.

The result was, however, that my firm not only did not get a decision in its favor for the $16,000 to which it was justly entitled, but this claim was wiped out by this Daniel come to judgment, who gave a decision in favor of the defendant for $132,000.

I regarded this award as such a terrible outrage upon justice that I obtained a stay of proceedings, and made an appeal, setting forth therein the advice given to me by the referee to settle before the case was closed.