by Mohandas K. Gandhi


The year's stay in Pretoria was a most valuable experience in my life. Here it was that I had
opportunities of learning public work and acquired some measure of my capacity for it. Here it
was that the religious spirit within me became a living force, and here too I acquired a true
knowledge of legal practice. Here I learnt the things that a junior barrister learns in a senior
barrister's chamber, and here I also gained confidence that I should not after all fail as a lawyer. It
was likewise here that I learnt the secret of success as a lawyer.

Dada Abdulla's was no small case. The suit was for £40,000. Arising out of business
transactions, it was full of intricacies of accounts. Part of the claim was based on promissory
notes, and part on the specific performance of promise to deliver promissory notes. The defence
was that the promissory notes were fraudulently taken and lacked sufficient consideration. There
were numerous points of fact and law in this intricate case.

Both parties had engaged the best attorneys and counsel. I thus had a fine opportunity of
studying their work. The preparation of the plaintiff's case for the attorney, and the sorting of facts
in support of his case, had been entrusted to me. It was an education to see how much the
attorney accepted, and how much he rejected from my preparation, as also to see how much use
the counsel made of the brief prepared by the attorney. I saw that this preparation for the case
would give me a fair measure of my powers of comprehension and my capacity for marshalling

I took the keenest interest in the case. Indeed I threw myself into it. I read all the papers
pertaining to the transactions. My client was a man of great ability and reposed absolute
confidence in me, and this rendered my work easy. I made a fair study of book-keeping. My
capacity for translation was improved by having to translate the correspondence, which was for
the most part in Gujarati.

Although, as I have said before, I took a keen interest in religious communion and in public
work and always gave some of my time to them, they were not then my primary interest. The
preparation of the case was my primary interest. Reading of law and looking up law cases, when
necessary, had always a prior claim on my time. As a result, I acquired such a grasp of the facts
of the case as perhaps was not possessed even by the parties themselves, inasmuch as I had
with me the papers of both the parties.

I recalled the late Mr. Pincutt's advice--facts are three-fourths of the law. At a later date it was
amply borne out by that famous barrister of South Africa, the late Mr. Leonard. In a certain case
in my charge, I saw that though justice was on the side of my client, the law seemed to be against
him. In despair I approached Mr. Leonard for help. He also felt that the facts of the case were
very strong. He exclaimed, 'Gandhi, I have learnt one thing, and it is this, that if we take care of
the facts of a case, the law will take care of itself. Let us dive deeper into the facts of this case.'
With these words he asked me to study the case further and then see him again. On a reexamination
of the facts I saw them in an entirely new light, and I also hit upon an old South
African case bearing on the point. I was delighted, and went to Mr. Leonard and told him
everything, 'Right,' he said, 'we shall win the case. Only we must bear in mind which of the judges
takes it.'

When I was making preparation for Dada Abdulla's case, I had not fully realized this paramount
importance of facts. Facts mean truth, and once we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid
naturally. I saw that the facts of Dada Abdulla's case made it very strong indeed, and that the law
was bound to be on his side. But I also saw that the litigation, if it were persisted in, would ruin the
plaintiff and the defendant, who were relatives and both belonged to the same city. No one knew
how long the case might go on. Should it be allowed to continue to be fought out in court, it might
go on indefinitely and to no advantage of either party. Both, therefore, desired an immediate
termination of the case, if possible.

I approached Tyeb Sheth and requested and advised him to go to arbitration. I recommended
him to see his counsel. I suggested to him that if an arbitrator commanding the confidence of both
parties could be appointed, the case would be quickly finished. The lawyers' fees were so rapidly
mounting up that they were enough to devour all the resources of the clients, big merchants as
they were. The case occupied so much of their attention that they had no time left for any other
work. In the meantime mutual ill-will was steadily increasing. I became disgusted with the
profession. As lawyers, the counsel on both sides were bound to rake up points of law in support
of their own clients. I also saw for the first time that the winning party never recovers all the costs
incurred. Under the Court Fees Regulation there was a fixed scale of costs to be allowed as
between party and party, the actual costs as between attorney and client being very much higher.
This was more than I could bear. I felt that my duty was to befriend both parties and bring them
together. I strained every nerve to bring about a compromise. At last Tyeb Sheth agreed. An
arbitrator was appointed, the case was argued before him, and Dada Abdulla won.

But that did not satisfy me. If my client were to seek immediate execution of the award, it would
be impossible for Tyeb Sheth to meet the whole of the awarded amount, and there was an
unwritten law among the Porbandar Memans living in South Africa that death should be preferred
to bankruptcy. It was impossible for Tyeb Sheth to pay down the whole sum of about £37,000 and
costs. He meant to pay not a pie less than the amount, and he did not want to be declared
bankrupt. There was only one way. Dada Abdulla should allow him to pay in moderate
instalments. He was equal to the occasion, and granted Tyeb Sheth instalments spread over a
very long period. It was more difficult for me to secure this concession of payment by instalments
than to get the parties to agree to arbitration. But both were happy over the result, and both rose
in the public estimation. My joy was boundless. I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to
find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function
of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a
large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing
about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby--not even money,
certainly not my soul.