The West Virginia journal. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1864-1877, 1865-11-15

Court. could Ike 0u,tel OF GsMrui, without
proof and without 4 hearing :? ,,.,': -. :, ,;,f
Mre the question is very different. It il, (
whether an attorney, who has, nertr leen al. !,
mittel to practice in Nds Court, shall not7 be J,
admitted, without taking certain oath ? anil
| il 50, whether his conduct, since the date, Of
the certificate and license on which he bases
his application, as confessed by himself IN
open court. has been such as to render him
MI unworthy minister in court Of Justice !?
There, rs Viewed Ly tho Jul@, it was =
question Of typulsion-here, question Of III
.iHctioN. . :. t,s .a.I. s,.4
| Ii this court was now to tender tho oath
referred 10. to an attorney already admitted to /,
practice. at its bar, who had not before taken !.
| it, axd he should decline it, n question similar
Ito til, one ,lccilel BY Judge Williams might
possibly arise. But Sufficient unto the day."
iNc. -.,s...E &. -,
Having dccalcd the case, and indulsrd in =
fw tEisl remarks as to the policy Of the
: Government, &:. he put the following query:
; "The farmers, mechanics, merchants teach.
crS, and physicians alr allowed TO return anil
rcsa,nc hinr usual avocations- why not allow
the lawyers to .lo likewise" .. -......, ...,
II may be answered, that il is because they
arc o,TtrrS, as lle himself calls them, possess.
ins many exclusive privileges, charged with
Irresponsible duties, ard endowed by express
statutes with high powers; as will be shown
in it's proper place. .. ,.... ....-....
When The honorable and learned counsel.
who produced hcrc anI commended this
opinon to my consideration, occupied this
scat with unsurpassed ability, dignity anil
usefulness, what member Of this bar, knowing
him rs ! knox him, wonld have dared TO
address to him. rs Soupl dOctrincS-Sound in
law, and SOunl in morals-Such rs arc found
in the decision referred to: ..,... ..9.....i,
"Thc right Of rebellion is natural. G~l.
given, impressed upon our nature, nnd written
upon our hearts, by the finger Of Omnipo:cncc,
therefore, inalcnablc; aud this is the funtla.
mental, controlling idea Of our own immortal
Declaration Of Independence -.. ...'.r-
What? "RcvoIution God. given right
and the controlling idea Of the Declaration
Of independence It is an unwarrantablc.
n monStroIS perverSion OF the doctrines Of
that immortal document. \ Gol.giycn
right ? 1t is bI;lsphcmy. There is no SiIcll
idea in ,ha, memorable and incompatible
State paper. The doctrine it procla;mS is, that
"Whcn 4 long train Of abuses and uSrrpa.
tons, pursuing invariably the same object,
cvinccs n design to reduce the people under
absolute dcSpotiSn, it is Chen, and not till
thcn) their right, it is their duty to throw oil
such government, and to provide new guards
for their future security" ---.- ...... b., ..r
+ This is the controlling idea that it is tho
/ right Of the people, when, and not until, tho
r government bccomcX oppressive, tyrann;cal
" and destructive Of their rights a,rl' liberties,
. 10 alter or abolish it. This is the doctrine Of
: the Declaration Of Independence. 1t contains
Y not word or sentence f.vorinS or countcnanc-
:. ins the notion that 4 revolution MAJ be jus:i-
: fled OIL any other grounds. .'s.. ,..gl--.l
n The honorable Judge caps the climax with
c, the following sentence. which is now submit.
| ted to inc as sound legal maxim: / ~.
i. "Rcbellion is terrible initS consequences,
. leads to great cnorm;tic$, and when ny,uG.
: GaJhr, rs in the present case. = nons!rous po-
\ ;litical ollea$e; but still! .is--wha: only
t ma!am p;0hEtuHl, not Hmlam IN So" ,:ri
;, And Nus is commended to me as good
!; American law! will not. believe that tho
r counsel ever read it, or surely. he would not
I have made it part Of his argument, and havo
). relied upon it rs authority in support Of hia
$ motion, but would have treated it with AZ
mach contempt as feel, but cannot express.
) What? "UynaJ;Ibt rebellion, rs in tho
r present c:.sc," not wrong il, ana Of HselL and
only wrong because Statntr law makes it
: wrong? LH"rtiulI revolution, nmltms pm.
hJxtnn,, not maium in 81 II not malum in 81.
it is not crimc, because we have no statutes
GDrbi,hling it. .... 49,.
, Neither the frame.S of our Constitution,
nor the long anl iustrous line Of legislators
since it, adoption, like the Gncian law.giycr
in regard to parr;cile, ever supposedit posi-.
blc, that 4 Grim: Of so deep dye, could be
committed. and therefore nale 10 law pro-.
llibitin. il. ...... ..g>0l,,. &
What, allow m, again TO ask. = revolt
a:ainS: tn. S"v"rcisa:y Of the county,
against the p,or!e themselves. and against
their government, whose cxcrlrncics cannot
be expressed in wo1lS. but arc felt in the
pulsa,ionS Of the heart Of every true American
citizen is not Of it'.,f crime against lifc,
liberty and humanity? Cur immortal an.
cestors might we'll suppose, as they did, that
latiya BORN American cilizens could never, in
80 unhoiy cau<e, imbrlc their hands in tho
blood Of their fellow couGtrymen.
| With judges presiding in her Supreme
Court entertaining and MomusatinS such
opinions, is it. any matter Of surprise. that
loyal Kentucky is the homo Of brigantls and
OUTLAWS, and suffering all the ills and horrors
consequent upon reiyR Of confusion and
anarchy? Or that this fair valley Of ours,
adopting such opinions, should have been
ravagcd and made dcSolate iln,lc: the leader
ship Of its own sons! Or, that consider
able portion OF the community should now
desire TO reward them, by restoring to thctu
their former commanding positions * =,
Commend me not to such authority. -
/ lIavins answered, as think, all tho author
itics relied upon, in support Of the motion,
and shown their inapplicaLility. Twill now.
briefly as possible, proceed to- mn examination,
first, Of the common law: doctrine, and second,
some; of our statutory provisions on the sub
jcct first, however, disposins Of the precedent
Of the Court Of Appeals, and Of this Court d.
Counsel also rely upon the: prnctcc in o,,r
own Court Of Appeals, and; also upon = tho
practice in this Court up to a very, recent
period. ST., ... . sa. - :..rs. Z. - .:,ass
1t is conceded that thu Court of Appeals
has not required attorneys, pracicinSs 1T ritS
bar, to take the oath in question, For Whit !
rcason, l do not know. Il presume, howpver.
in the first place, that the question has never: