Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1865-12-06
{ JAMES MERCER.
ssess JOSEPH MALkEE,
JOHN FTENE.T HONG
IllPoRIANT 80 oE - -.

TUCE1 COVRr oF APPEALS.
STATE oF REsTUcEY,t
COURT OF ATFEAIS.
sept. 2> I~il
On the tweuty-iirst inst, O. $. Ten
uey, Of Mount Sterling, Ky fled in
JIis Court his affidavit, averring that, as
a citizen of this State, he had, for ten
consecutive years, Immediately preceding
the year ei4lJeen hundred and sixty
two. pTacticed law iu the courts Of this
Commonwealth, and bad been admitted
I'm the mean time as attorney in this
Court; and that having Joined the
Confederate army i'm the fan of that year.
he continued to serve ia it until the spring
Of the year eighteen hundred and sixty
five, took the amnesty oath prescribed
by President Liuc0lu'- proclamation OF
pardon, issued on the eighth OF DgCem-
tier. eighteen hundred and sixty-three,
au official certificate Of which accom-
panie- the affidavit. And thereUpOu
suggesting "a desire 60 remain iH Ken
tcc6y and again practice law here, he
submitted motion To be- permitted 10
resume his suspended privilege in this
court.
ON ful consideration we do not feel
authorized Ia withhold this privilege.
A conviction Of treason would have
subjected the aPpiicau, 10 the statutory
Remuneration of forensic diSfTauchise-
meut. BHt a confession of treason with
aHt conviction would not have that penal
effect, and ihc amnesty oath, and the
consequent Executive pardon, relieved
Ile applicant FROM all liability 10 con-
vie,i1u af treason, and. 50 jar rcinstated
him iu tae '-gUi status he previously oc-
cgpiej.
Nevertheless, the expatriation statute
OF Kentucky, might den3ti1uaiiza the
applicant SIS "a citizen az Kentucky,
aud diyest himof all the rights
and privileges necessarily incident
rl hi= forfeited ei~izenship. And these
local penalties could not be ayer-ei or
remited by the President pardon. But
neither any law nor usage of Kentucky
requires q lawyer 90 Doe q citizen as an i'm
d.-pguS3uig prerequisite 60 the privilege
of practising IN any OF her counts.
And what the law dispeH>es with
JEis Court viii not presume % enact So
far, therefore, as the eXpauial.on act de-
u0uuces q forfeiture of the civil rights of
81 citizen. as 0 citizen, it Is not applicable
Jo forensic privileges which are not pecu-
iiarly or exclusively incident To citizen
ship; and consequently the constitutional
validity Of that enactment is not Involved
iu "a judicial decision of the question now
presented for our consideration. That
question depends on the law of Ken
tucky, and The eEpalriation act presents
no legal impediment to the privi-
lere sought iu this case. Nor
can we decide that the imputed
iucivism or even immortality OF rebellion
against the National Government legally
operate as s. disqualification to practice
law. lusurrecIion does not, par So, de-
priye the offender of any civil right, nor
authorize his Cisiranchisemut, further
than necessary for suppre,sing his parri-
cidal acts, and the positive law pre>gvibGs.
The insurgent may be as capable faith
fJl and trustworthy in his professional
sphere, as IL he had never raised an arm
against the laws Of his country. And
we viii not 90 beyond that circle % in
quire into his personal merits or titnes,
Tor admijtauce to our bar. Beyond this,
censorship belongs not TO this Court.
Nor can we decide that his admitted
conduct, foreign from his legal profession,
viii affect his competency or fidelity In
the continued practice Of It's duties.
Wherefore, as the applicant appears to
be free from any disqualification, legal or
moral, we sdiudge that lac shall be per
mifted % practice as an attorney and
counsellor in this Court.