The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-07-21
RATE OF SUBSCRIPTIONS.
RATES OF ADVERTISING.
COURT OF APPEALS.

Argument Submitted by Gov. b.
stanton at July Term, A. D., 1865, in
the matter OF Andrew Hunters Ap.
pIicRtIOn TO Practice RS an Attorney.
The applicant presents himself to the
court, and asks the privilege of prac-
ticing at its bar, without taking the
oathS prescribed by the law of Febru-
ary, a. D., 1886, which requires all At
torneys who propose to practice in the
courts of this State, to take an oath
that they have done nothing in aid of
the late rebellion since the Goth day OF
June, A. D., 1868.
The facts upon which he bases his ap-
plication are as follows:
!. That he was duly licensed to pratice law
In the Courts OF the State of Virginia in the
That Re practiced as an Attorney in the
Courts OF Virginia from his admission to the
commencement OF the late rebellion in the
spring Of 1861.
3 That in May, 1851, he was elected to the
House OF Delegates of the State of Virginia
ana served out his term of two years, during
which the State Legislature of which
he was member, disclaimed any al
legiance to the Government nf the United
states and recognized tue supremacy OF the
4 Atthe expiration of his term of service
In the House OF Delegates. he was elected to
the senate OF Virginia, and served a term OF
two years in the Senate, while Virginia was
State of the Southern Confederacy.
Delegates, he took an oath of allegiance to
the southern COnfederacy.
g. He does not come within any of the ex-
ceptlonS To the Presidents amnesty PrOcla-
nation OF May %, 1866. He took the am
nesty oath prescribed by the amnesty ProcIa-
nation OF President Lincoln OF December,
1853. and President Johnson's Proclamation
OF May, 1856.
:. The state OF West Virginia was admitted
A: D., 1858.
5. The applicant was never admitted to
practice in the Courts OF West Virginia, nor
Virginia.
Upon this state of facts, Mr.. Hunter
claims the right to practice law in this
State without taking the oath required
of lawyers in this State to practice in
the Courts of the State, passed Febru-
ary, 1866.
1t is claimed in the first place that by
n Just construction of this law, it does
not apply to lawyers praCtiCing before
its passage.
But the whole scope and spirit OF the
law is SO manifestly intended to en-
brace all lawyers who propose to prac-
tice in the State, that the applicant
manifestly places but little reliance on
this proposition. The law says that
mo Attorney-at-law shall be allowed
"to practice in any Court, or before any
"Justice or Board of Supervisors of this
"State, after the passage of this act, un-
"til he shall take in the eCOurtinwhich he
proposes to practice, in addition to the
"oaths now required by law the fol-
flowing oath.
But if this were so, Mr.. Hunter new
er was admitted to practice in the Courts
of West Virginia. And propose here
after to show that he is not entitled to
practice in this State by virtue of his
license to practice in the State of Vir-
ginia.
But the applicant relies mainly upon
the proposition that the law of Feb
ruary, 1866, is unconstitutional, be-
the nature of a bill of attainder, inn
pairs the obligations of a contract, and
divests vested rights. To this l reply:
l, That the presumption is always
in favor of the conStitutionality of any
law upon the statute book. 1t will
never be presumed that the legislative
department of the Government has
transcribed its powers, and passed
law in violation of the constitution
which the members of the Legislature
were sworn to support. If, therefore,
upon full consideration of the whole
question, the Court is in doubt as to
whether the law is in violation of the
constitution or not, the decision must
be in favor of its constitutionality.
2. But1 hope to be able to relieve the
Court from all reasonable doubts on the
subject, and to show beyond cavil and
controversy, that the law is clearly and
plainly constitutional and valid en-
actment.
The case depends upon the nature
and character of the rights acquired by
an Attorney by his admission TO the
bar, and the power of the Legislature
and the Courts over him in his official
character as an Attorney.
l deny that an Attorney by his Ii
cense acquires any rights that are not
tn oh RI fo,V, nd
control of the Legislature, and the
Courts in which he is authorized to
practice.
1t is important to any just and accu-
rate conception of the questions in
volved in this application to understand
precisely the relation which an Attor-
uey occupies towards the Court, the
law and the community.
They have been recognized as an
essential part of the machinery for the
administration of justice; as an indis-
pensable aPpendage TO the Courts as far
back as we have any traces of the
common law.
We find them recognized in the acts
of Parliament in England, as lar
back as the reign of Henry III. In the
20ih year of the reign of Henry III,
they were authorized to appear for
persons owing suit or service to the
Court Leet, or the Court of the Manor.
FROM LudG IlIle LneTe Is frequent re-
cognitiOns by act of Parliament, in the
shape of laws comforting authority upon
them in special cases, prohibiting GER
tain offences, DC, &c.
In the fourth year of Henry " for
the first time, roll of the Attorneys
practicing in each Court was required
to be kept in the Courts in which they
practiced. From that time to the
present, not only Parliament, but the
Courts in which they practiced have
exercised the most unlimited control
over them.
The history of the State of Virginia
is full of instructive Precedents on this
question. Very soon after the settle
meut of the colony struggle com
lawyers, which continued for more
than a century.
During that period numerous laws
were passed regulating the mode of ad-
mitting lawyers to the bar, prescribing
the Oaths they should take, regulating
their fees, Furnishing them for miscon-
duct. taking illegal fees, &C., &C., in
which the colonial legislature exercised
the most unlimited control.
In 1912, law was passed requiring
all Attorneys to be licensed, and regu-
hating their fees. l, Heuning Statutes,
275.
In 1645, law was passed expelling
all Attorneys from office and prohibit
ing them from praCticing in the courts.
l, Henning Statutes, 305. at the same
session law was passed repeating the
law, authorizing Attorneys to be Ii
censed. l, Henning, 3l3.
In 1647, law was passed prohibiting
Attorneys from taking any fees or prac-
ticing in the courts, and requiring the
courts to manage causes for weak par
ties who could not manage them them.
selves, or to appoint some person from