The West Virginia journal. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1864-1877, 1866-02-21

luS VI q" W o"'u WA '9t"h'S w ouSSlat
civil or military.
But on the contrary, that they were a
profession or class sut.gcneris, and though
called officers in ono sense, and some.
times officers of Court. yet never in the
sense Of these acts, nor intended to be
embraced By them.
1t is we'll settled principle, admitted
on both sides in the argument, that in
giving construction to any statute, the
Legislature must be understood to have
used terms and set phrases in the sense,
in which those torms and phrases for
long years prior, had been understood
and received in relation TO particular
subject.
With such understanding, universally
acquicsced in by our own people, the oct
Of November 10th, 1853, nas passed
without naming attorneys, passed in the
light Of the express decision Of the high.
est tribunal Of tho State standing un.
disturbed and unquestioued as tho Law
Of the land and the only rule Of CON
structiou in such case. Can that statute 50
passed be now construed by snyother rule
of Interpretation than that 80 long and
we'll settled and so universally recognized
and acknowledged?
1t cuu not be on any principle Of req.
sou, justice or sound policy. And tho
construction contended for BY the assis.
tant Attorney General is still more un.
teuablc when it is remembered that the
act, though perhaps not strictly ez post
tucto, is penal iu its nature aud retro
spectiye 10 its operations, and should
therefore be construed strictly, set it is
sought to make it embrace attorneys
whcu they are not named.
l.seems to mo to be impossible to give
the act iu question such construction
with such Surroundings and such ante.
ccdcuts, or eyea to hsrbor suspicion
that solitary member ofthe Legislature
that passed it even dreamceI, much less
Leliccsl, that it embraced attorneys.
| sec no reason, therefore, 10 tho sec.
ond objection, to authorize this Court in
refusing to permit the applicant to quail.
lily aud practice as an attorney and coun'
.eIlor iu this Court upon his tsklng the
o4.hs required BY law, viz: tho osths to
ssppor, the Constitution Of tho United
States and of thi, State. and the oath OF
otice 90 an attoIn~y.
But it may be asked: If Al attorney
is not sn officer. elected or Appoioted
within the meaning of said act, how is it
be is required to take the oaths to sup:
port the Constitution of the United
States aud Of this State
Il il answered, that by the Sd see. Of
chap. l64, Code 1860, every attorney is
required to take the oath Of fidelity to
the State, the form efwhich is prescribed
BY the lat sec. Of chap. l3; snd by the
Act Of June 2Gth, 1863, chap. l3 Of The
Code is repealed, and the form Of tho
oath Of fidelity made to correspond with
the requirements Of the constitution of
tho new State, which is the oath to sup.
port tho Constitution Of the United
States and tho Constitution Of this State.
In tho ease OF William A. Quarter
mptr,cdea, from K.nawha county:
Quarter had applied for admission to
the bar of the Circuit Court Of Kanawhs
county, the Judge Of said Court refused
to permit him to be enrolled; thereupou
he applied to this Court for . 'uperscdeas
to the judgment Of the Court below.
Hon. Judge Berkeshi,e, 10 delivering
the opinion Of the Court, Gays:
The same ruling must spply in this
case rs in the Faulkner case, although
the petitioner had been in tho Southern
army, he had taken tho amnesty oath
and had been pardoned for oil treason he
may have ccunittcd against the United
States. 1t has not bceu contended that
he haSN ever committed any treason
against this State, and if it had been 50
contended the Court could not have re.
fused to admit him unless be bad beon
tried and convicted Of . felony. Nor
can any Court suspend tho license Of an
attorney mlcs, he has been summoned
TO show cause Why .n information shall
not BE- fled against bin, tried 'upou such
information aud found guilty. In such
q case the Court may anuul or suspend
license.
It is tn, duty and province Of the
Legislature to make the law.
The Courts ouly prom ounce upon the
law as they find it.
The Court below had no right to 70.
fuse to enroll the name Of the petitioner
and permit him to qualify as ~ attorney.
Judgmen, oil Court below il reversed.
MINORITY REPORT.
Judge y. llarrison, dissenting, hold
a, follows upon the point decided BY the
Court:
I'm e1pounding the statutes it is
proper to look, it seems to mo, to the
peculiar condition Of the country, and to
the particular e.ig.nc;es and nc:e,sitiea
which existed whva the act va, passec.
The preamble OF purpose ofa statute is
sometimes The only keJ which unlock'
it, meaning. Iii. 10 not allowed to con.
troll aoy clear aud express pro'isioas to
the contrary, yet, 10 4 case Of doubtful
phraseology, in determining tho mean
ing Of statute, the Court may we'll look
:. R-....lrt .ornalIed IN IO0s to