GEORGE M. PALMER

THE LAWYER IN POLITICS

[Speech of George M. Palmer at the annual banquet of the New York State Bar Association, given in Albany, January 18, 1899.  President Walter S. Logan introduced Mr. Palmer in the following words:  “The next speaker is the Hon. George M. Palmer, minority leader of the Assembly. [Applause.] He is going to speak on ’The Lawyer in Politics,’ and I am very glad to assure you that his politics are of the right kind.”]

Mr. President and members of the bar association of the state of new York:—­Through the generous impulse of your committee I enjoy the privilege of responding to this toast.  I was informed some four weeks ago I would be called upon, the committee thinking I would require that time in preparation, and I have devoted the entire time since in preparing the address for this occasion.  “The Lawyer in Politics.”  The first inquiry of the lawyer and politician is, “What is there in it?” [Laughter.] I mean by that, the lawyer says in a dignified way, “What principle is involved, and how can I best serve my client, always forgetting myself?” The politician, and not the statesman, says, “What is in it?” Not for himself, oh, never.  Not the lawyer in politics; but “What is there in it for the people I represent?  How can I best serve them?”

You may inquire what is there in this toast for you.  Not very much.  You remember the distinguished jurist who once sat down to a course dinner similar to this.  He had been waited on by one servant during two courses.  He had had the soup.  Another servant came to him and said, “Sir, shall I take your order?  Will you have some of the chicken soup?” “No, sir; I have been served with chicken soup, but the chicken proved an alibi.” [Laughter.] A distinguished judge in this presence said he was much indebted to the Bar.  I am very glad to say that the lawyer in politics formed a resolution on the first day of last January to square himself with the Bar, and he now stands without any debt. [Laughter.] I remember a reference made by the distinguished gentleman to a case that was tried by a young, struggling attorney.  I also remember a young judge who appeared in one of the rural counties, who sat and heard a case very similar to the one to which reference was made, and I remember the fight of the giants before him.  Points were raised of momentous importance.  They were to affect the policy of the State.  One lawyer insisted upon the correctness of an objection and succeeded.  He felt so elated over that success he in a short time objected again, and the judge ruled against him, but in his ardor he argued with the court.  “Why, I can’t conceive why you make this ruling.”  “Why,” the judge says, “I have just ruled with you once, I must rule with the other fellow this time.” [Laughter.]