The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-07-21

as TO their capacity and fitness, and to
conform to such regulations as might
be prescribed by law.
Mr.. Hunter was never admitted to
practice in the Courts of West Virginia.
and he must conform to the laws of
west Virginia as the only condition
upon which he can be permitted to
practice in her Courts.
1t is true that the State of West Vir-
ginia has adopted the laws of Virginia,
and declared that they shall remain in
force until they are altered or repealed,
Amongst the laws of Virginia SO
adopted was the law providing for the
admission of Attorneys. ~.
But it derived its vitality and validity
from its adoption by the constitution
mained in force until it was altered by
the laws of West Virginia.
Mr.. Hunter never appeared in the
Courts OF West Virginia, or claimed to
he member OF the bar, until the law
of Virginia was altered by the law OF
February, 1866, requiring the oath
which he now asks 10 be excused from
taking, was passed.
To give him any claim to vested
right to practice in the Courts of West
Virginia he must have been practicinH
lawyer, or had right to practice in the
Courts OF West Virginia. He has never
taken the oath of allegiance to the State
VI " COY ~ BlhIdI VI luS Odlu OI uuSllLy
TO clients in any of the Courts of West
Virginia.
He will not now claim that he has a
right to practice in the Courts without
taking these oaths. But at the time he
presents himself there is further oath
required by the laws of West Virginia.
His admission and the oath taken by
him in 1924 in the State of Virginia do
not, per Sc, give him a right to practice
in the Courts of West Virginia.
He must take an oath of allegiance
to the State of West Virginia. Why?
Because it is required by the laws of
West Virginia. If he must take one
oath because it is required by the law
of West Virginia, why not the other?
The law Is not changed, because it is
easy and convenient TO take one oath
and he cannot take the other.
1t is just as much an invasion of Mr..
Hunters rights as an Attorney to re-
quire him to take the oath of allegiance
10 West Virginia, as it is to require him
to take the oath of February, 1856.
The State of West Virginia bears
the same relation to the State of Vir-
ginia, that the State of Kentucky does.
And suppose it will hardly be claim.
ed that il a Virginia lawyer, who was
admitted to practice before the Stute of
Kentucky was admitted into the Union,
should now go into Kentucky and
claim the right to practice there with
out complying with the laws of Ken
lucky. 1t will hardly be contended
that his claims could be recognized.
The case of Anderson Us. the election
officers of Montgomery county, recent
ly decided by the Court of Appeals of
Maryland, Sustains this principle and
goes far beyond it. That case was an
application for u mandatnuS to the de-
PENDANTS to receive and count the plain
titt7s vote. The applicant was legal
nf l1lfn In
Constitution, but was DISTINGUISHED by
the present Constitution because he
could not take the retrospective oath of
loyalty prescribed by the new Consti-
tuition. The Court held that State in
the reorganization of its Government,
and the adoption of a new Constitution
had right to limit and restrict the
right of suffrage, and deprive persons
of privileges under the new Constitu-
zion, which they had had under the old?
that such provision was not eE post
JdctO, or in violation of the Constitution
of the United States. But here the
party may retain all his privileges by
retaining his citizenship in the old
State. When State is divided every
citizen has right to make his election,
whether he will be Il citizen in the old
State or the new. BY electing to re-
main a citizen of the old State he may
avoid the operation of any obnoxious
.
the new State. If he elects to be a citi-
zen of the new State he must submit
to her Constitution and laws, and
cannot bring with him the protec-
ton which the Constitution and laws
of the old State afforded him. 1t is
true that party may have to change
his domicil to get into one or the other
State as he may prefer. But there is
no special hardship in IL is, as this is
what about one half of the people of
the country do every year, without any
such cause.
ginia passed law on the 10th of Feb
ruary, 1862, requiring all Attorneys to
take the oath prescribed by the ordin-
ance of June llth, 1861, Laws of 1862,
so, 20. On the 14th of May, 1862, this
law was repealed, and an act passed re
quiring all persons ''who shall continue
''in his office or employment" to take
an oath abjuring the State government
mt Richmond, and an oath Of allegiance
to the restored government of Virginia,
which was in force when the State OF
West Virginia was admitted into the
Union. This law also declares that
every person who shall refuse to take
that oath, shall be deemed a suspicious
person, and may be arrested and re.
quired tO give bond. This law which
was made II law of West Virginia by
her constitution the applicant has new
er complied with.
Section 8, Article 9, of the constitu-
ton OF West Virginia, provides that
1.-The common law, and the laws of the
Estate of Virginia in force within the
boundaries of this State, when this
Constitution goes into operation, and
mot repugnant thereto, shall be and
continue the law of this State until
"altered or repealed" The applicant
therefore was not an Attorney author
lZnn IN Dptinn Ia in 20 tnf nj
ginia, according to the laws of that
State at the time West Virginia was ad-
United into the Union. He stands
therefore upon the footing of an Attor-
ney from another Slate taking up his
domicil in this State, and asking ad-
mission to the bar of this State, as a
West Virginia lawyer or of citizen
who had never been admitted, making
an original application to practice as
an Attorney in the Courts of the State.
The law of February, 1855, is not retro
spective as to him, and therefore he can
make no question about its being er
post Jdcto in violation of contracts or di-
vesting vested rights.
The practice of the Parliament of
Great Britain, and the Colonial and
State Legislature of Virginia, in treat
ing the privileges OF an Attorney as
within their control, is sustained by
the decisions of the Courts.
In the case referred to by the appli-
cant in 10 Howard, Judge Taney, in
delivering the opinion of the Court
says: "And it has been well settled by
"the rules and practice of Common Law
courts, that it rests exclusively with
"the Court to determine ICho is Qualified
ITO become one Of its officers as an AttOr-
"ney and Counsellor, and for what
"cause he ought to be removed"
In that case the Attorney was remov-
ed bY the Court in his n abSenca yvitbout