(3) The profession of the lawyer presents peculiarly difficult problems.  May he so manipulate the facts in his plea as to convince a jury of what he is himself not convinced?  May he by use of the argumentum ad populum, by his eloquence and skill, win a case which he does not believe in at heart?  In some ancient codes lawyers had to swear not to defend causes which they believed unjust.  But this is hardly fair to a client, since, even though appearances are against him, he may be innocent; whatever can be said for him should be discovered and presented to the tribunal.  Dr. Johnson said:  “You are not to deceive your client with false representations of your opinion, you are not to tell lies to the judge, but you need have no scruple about taking up a case which you believe to be bad, or affecting a warmth which you do not feel.  You do not know your cause to be bad till the judge determines it.  An argument which does not convince you may convince the judge, and, if it does convince him, you are wrong and he is right.” [Footnote:  Quoted by W. E. H. Lecky, The Map of Life, p. 110.  The chapter which contains this quotation gives an interesting discussion of the ethics of the lawyer and some further references on the subject.] This dilemma of the lawyer could be matched by equally doubtful situations that confront the physician, [Footnote:  See, for a discussion of the ethics of the medical profession, G. Bernard Shaw, Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, and B. J. Hendrick, “The New Medical Ethics,” in McClure’s Magazine, vol. 42, p. 117.] and members of the other professions.  There is need of acknowledged professional codes, drawn up by representative members, and enforced by public opinion within the profession and perhaps by the danger of expulsion from membership in the professional associations.  It is largely the variation in practice between equally conscientious members that causes the distrust and disorder of our present situation.  Truthfulness must be standardized for the professions. [Footnote:  On professional codes, see H. Jeffs, Concerning Conscience, chap.  VIII.]

(4) The author, whether of books or essays or reviews, has to face particularly powerful temptations.  It is so easy to overstate his case, to omit facts that make against his conclusions, to use colored words, to beg the question adroitly, to create prejudice by unfair epithets, to evade difficult questions, to take the popular side of a debated matter at the cost of loyalty to truth.  Controversy almost inevitably breeds inaccuracy; there are few writers who fight fair.  Quotations, torn from their context, mislead; carefully chosen figures give a wrong impression; the reviewer is tempted to pick out passages that support only his contention, whether eulogistic or depreciatory.  Leslie Stephen speaks of “the ease with which a man endowed with a gift of popular rhetoric, and a facility for catching at the current phrases, can set up as teacher, however palpable to the initiated