The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1856-02-28
Report OF she judiciary Csnnissee on
the Petition Of David sceombe

-
AT the last term Of the Supreme Coar' Vi
this Territory, Mr.. DAVID szooxBE lawyer
Of St. Authony. placed 90 the records Of the
Court. an affidavit grossly insulting to Two n
its Justices for which act be was thrown over
the bar. A tew DAYS since, Mr.. SEcosBE sent
petition to the Legislative Assembly, pray
ing that body to reinstate him in his position
~ attorney -at-iaw. The petition was presented
to the Council by Mr.. FLaSpRAr, and, on mo
ton, ii was referred TO the Judiciary Commit
tee. whereof he is chairman. The committee
on the 10Th inst, presented an able report on
the subject. from the pen Of Mr.. Fi..SYRAr,
which We subjo:n:
Mr. FiaDdran from the Committee on Judi
ciary, reported ~ follows -
Report Of the Committee on the Judiciary,
On the petition Of David seconlbe. to be re-
stored to the position Of Attorney and Coun-
sellor atIAw.
Your committee, u whom was referred the
above matter, respectfully report that after
carefully considering the subject embraced IN
said petition, they have arrived at the following
conclusions
LIST. That the Supreme Court had the power
by statute, to remove an attorney and counsel
lOr, on its own motion. for matter within its
own knowledge. without any notice 10 the par
ty 10 be removed.
I'd. That said court also possesses the power,
by statute, TO remove All attorney and counsel
lor when the accusation il made against him
by another. without notice 10 the party accused
II, In their opinion, the case is such US not TO
require said notice, AMI would refer 10 sections
20, 81, % aud % OF chapter % Of Revised
Statutes, ON page 400.
ID. That the said court have, in the case OF
Mr.. Secombe, exercised that power and adjudg-
| ed the case against him.
4th That whether this power, granted by
| the statute, Is OF doubtful validity, or whether
the exercise Of ii In this particular case was
wise or Just, are matters that cannot be ques-
toned by the Legislature, so a. to influence in
any manner the subject upon which the decision
Of said court operated.
9Th. That the Legislature has lis particular
| province. which is TO make laws, and the Judi.
ciarv has also It's distinct sphere, which = 10
cxpound and admiNkter the laws so mad
That these two Jurisdictions are entirely indie
pendent Of each other in their action. That
the sole and exclusive power Of interpreting the
laws is eon6ded to the courts, and that when a
construction is put upon law by an adjudca-
ton Of the highest court Of the country, Il is as
binding upon the Legislature us upon an indi.
vidual, and whether right or wrong, within the
scope Of the subject adjudged, is conclusive.
Your committee are also Of the opinion that
any attempt. by either arm Of the Government
TO interfere with those well settled rights Of any
hxur IA tborn.f IA p.,..s
and should meet with no encouragement, and
several departments OF the Government, will
weaken the liberties OF the subject and the sta
bity Of society
Your committee fully appreciate the impor'
lance Of an independent judiciary, and desire tc
throw no obstacles in the way OF entire freedom
in the exercise Of the powers entrusted TO il
but your committee are ofthc opinion that the
statute above referred to conlers power up
on the courts which should not exist in any
| tribunal in a free country. TO wit: the power
| to condemn party ia his absence, and with
out an opportunity TO defend himself, and ia
intiict upon him punishment much more 40
we're than X awarded 10 the commission Of high
crimes and your committee make this sug
gestion with full conviction Of The necessity
that exists for every court Of justice TO be abb
TO protect itself and enforce proper respect
to It's dignity and proceedings.
Your committee would therefore report that
in their opinion il is doubtful il the legislator,
have power 10 interfere in the matter Of Mr.
Secombe, and II they have. the exercise OF such
power would be inexpedient, but that il is also
their opinion that the statute above referred to
should be- so amended that the courts in future
can in no case remove an attorney and counsel
lor without first giving him an opportunity to
be heard in his defence
All Of which is respectfully submitted.
CmAs. r. FLASDRAr. Chm.
H. ~ SETTER
| ID. NJ HANSON