New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-12

sented by the distinguished lawyers selected to discuss
the question: and however may differ rom some o.
the propositions advanced gratefully Acknowledge
the assistance afforded me By the argumAnts OF my
Does the law Of Congress Of January a. 1865 conflict
with any Of the provisions Of the Constitution ~ tne
so' s Ss
has some marked aod unusual characteristic !, ;n'
augurates in American history new kind egisla-
ton at war with previously conceived and very gener.
ally entertained ideas. 1t is Of the species known
class sld,ionthat is TO say its provisions not Of
general application TO the whole community. II lacks
The universally" and "unifOrmality" which Black
stone declares are Of the OF law and its
quiremsDts and prohibitions are confined 20 limited
number Of persons, and particular calling IN llfe
Such an enactment to be binding must strictly observe
and keep within constitutional limitations. II enacted
at all il shall not exceed in the least the authority for
Its creation y.
The law is retroactive as well as prospective. 1t
deals with rights and privileges that were vested be-.
fore its passage In the case Of citizen by birth 1t
embraces the entire period Of his existence, and holds
insuisitoi. npon it. French writer OF distinction
says that snch laws are og ical In Principe anu os
astrous in results"
Another publicist OF equal fame SAYS "the retroac
ton of laws is the greatest Cline in legislation The
Constitution Of the State Of New. Hampshire declares
that retrospective laws are highly Injurious oppress-
i've and unjust" Chancellor Kent. In Dash agt. Van
KIeech. 18th Johnsons New York Reports. uses this
''A often the question has been brought before the
eouts of justice IN this country they have uniformly said
those which affect civil rights as to those which relate to
crime"
seeking Office place under the Unsted Ssates The
law of 1865 does relate to holding or seek
ing office place in any department OF the public
service. Lawyers nonine cannot be said tO be OIL
GERS of State. They to all intents and purposes as
much private citizens the members Of any other avo
cation trade or pursuit
law be said to be highly pena in Its general scope
and effect.
Now 1t can be all this, and yet allowed to stand.
Being all this it must stand, unless it violates some
principle Of the Constitution We have seen that the
courts have nothing do with the motives or the policy
that nstigate legislation. The first OF these may be
corrupt aud the last lladvised but the Judiciary can
not look at either OF them. The intention OF the law
giEer must be gained from the words he uses not from
the impulses that govern him.
We rccnr then to the quaton-Is this law uncon.
stuiona in all any of the respects claimed by those
vino oppose i'll And FIRST has Congress the rigth to
prescribe qualifications for persons wno desire admis
sion to the bar OF the national courts attorneys or
cOunseors The 25tb section OF the act OF September
a. 7eo provides that In all the Courts ofthe United
States the parties may pcad and manage their own
personally or by the assistance Of such counsel
atorncys.ataw as by the rules Of said courts re.
spectivey shall be permitted to manage atd conduct
passed shortly after the adoption OF the National Const
tuition aad when the principles upon which 1t is founded
were familiar to the mind 1 every statesman ana poa
into effect that provision Of the orgaoic Law which pro-
yides that the judicial power OF the United States
shall be vested In one supreme tOurt, IN
feior courts as Congress may from time to time estab
lsh" The 3Jth section OF this act Is clear concession
TO the courts Of exclusive jurisdiction the subject
of the admission Of attorneys and counseors 10 pract
Ice. and. may. think. be taken as an acknowledge
ment by Congress that this is matter within the u
dcia power Of the United States" 1t Is certain that
the courts have uniformly acted upon this understand
ing, and until the passage OF The law OF January ~
1866 nearly eighty years Congress has not attempted
TO exercise any control over the subject
In the of EX parte Secombc, reported IN tue i'th
Howard y c. Reports, which was an Application Tor 1
wit OF mandamus to the Judge Of the Supreme Court
O, the Territory OF Minnesota commanding them 10 va
cate made for the removal OF the rciator from
the roll Of attorneys Chief usce Taney says that ID
Court Of the United States tie relations between the
Court and tie attorneys ard coupsel0rs who prac'
tce in 1t. end their representative rights and cues
are regulated by the common Law. And he adds. IL
has been well settled by he rules and practice OF com
mon law courts that rests exclusively With the court
mine who quatedto become one OF ts oicers
as an attorney and counselor and for what cause he
ought TO be removed" The power. the Chief Justice
declares Is To, arbitrary one. but must be exercised
aud regulated by sound aud Just Judicial discretion
nhersJy the riQk.s Of the bar may be as scrupuously
gparied and maintained by The court Us tae rigts and
dignity Of the court ITSELF
Ii plain that any other doctrine would lead TO IN
termiuable disorder In the Courts. II Congress may
enact that manvho has aided in the re-
beon shall. thereafter be absolutely disqualified from
pratticug law in the National Courts Notwithstanding
lie has been previously admitted under their rues why
NAV not Congress enact that man shall be allowed 10
pracice in those Courts Wilton, any other qnacatOn
than having fought under the banners of the Republic
II the former may be decrced as penalty why not the
as a rsrardr Where shall tie power Of the courts
oy er the conduct and quncations OF attorneys end,
and where the power OF Congress begin How shall
tte con ct Of Jurisdiction that might arise be settled
IL Us, not be forgotten that Congress does not org
nate either the National Courts themselves or the Office
pS,iege franchise Of an. attorney and counselor IN
those courts III did, Il not prepared to say that II
could not annex such conditions TO the enjoyment Of the
privilege as II might consider wise and just
Let rs look back at tho objections made TO the
law the substantial grounds urged against IT.
Does ii deprive man OF any advantage which he had
legally acquired and how shall this be testedf II istne
indspunbe OF the citizen accused Of an oense to
wherein tho crime shall have been committed to DC M
formed Of and cause Of the aceusaton to be
criminal case to be compelled to be witness against
himself These are among the most solemn OF al the
guarantees Of the Constitution. They are not conces
sions liberty as is sometimes supposed they are le-
strants upon government and buiwarks against op-
preston.
Does this law describe crime and aflx penalty to
It's commssioni What IL crimef Ii II not some act
for which person may be punshedt What 10 punish
ment IL 1t net tie absolute or partial deprivation or
cur'aimcnt Of some right or enjoyment previously
possessedi Punishment TO be such. needs not to Dc
corpoleal The first murderer did not expate his Of
ene with his life or by Imprisonment. The sentence
pronounced against him was, afGgltlve and vaga'
bond shalt thou be on the earth" aud IN bis agony the
criminal cried ont My pasnmen, % crima ia
too plain TO need argument and that aAes leha!
TO its commission equally clear Does II not also tlke
from the person against whom its provisions are lev
eled the benefit OF presumptvc innocence, when Il re-
qui, res 10 take an expurgatory oath as cohiiton
10 exercise privilege, which, II ho were no, gniity hs
specified in the act he would pe ahoweat - 40. onis
The maxim Of the law IT, Acensare memo detef &C. ntsi
coram Do The demand OF this statute Is that py inc
offer q. affirmative proof OF innocence the nppcuht r
adm sion TO practice snail create as against HIiuse
presumption " guilt
IL is unworthy Of the great question to say that
is not obliged to put hmseli 10 tae ui'