The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-02-06

in giving construction to any statute,
the Legislature must be understood to
have used terms and set phrases in the
sense, in which those terms and phrases
for rlong years prior, had been under
stood and received in relation to par
ticular subject. E'I
!, With such understanding, universal
-ly; acquiesced in by our own people,
the act of November 10th, 1853 was
passed without naming attorneys, pass
ed in the light of the express decision
oil. the highest tribunal in the State;
standing undisturbed and unquestion-
ed as the law OF the land and the only
rule of construction in such case. Can
that statute so passed be now construed
by any other rule of Interpretation
than that so long and well settled ana
SO universally recognized and acknoWl-
edged? s55e9sit ,,z5dr -.a.. i..u
Il, can not be on any principle OF
reason. Justice or sonnd policy: And
the construction contended for by the
assistant Attorney General is still
more untenable, when 1t is remember
ed that the act, though perhaps not
strictly er post Jdeto is penal IN lts ma
ture and retrospective in its operations,
and should therefore be construed
strictly, vet it Is sought to make 1t en-
brace attorneys when they are not
named. ~ 512.yt ~ .25yt
give Ll6 hCE III a4nEoLAOhn6hlA q (DAA
struction with such surroundings and
such anteCedents, or even to harbor
suspicion that a solitary member OF ohe
legislature that passed it even dreamed,
much less believed, that 1t embraced at
torneys.
I see no reason, therefore, in the sec
ond objection, to authorize this Court
in refusing to permit the applicant to
qualify and practice as an attorney ana
counsellor in this Court upon his taking
the oaths required by law viz: the
oatIis to support the Constitution of the
United States and of this State, and the
oath of office as an attorney.
is not. an officer elected or appointed
within the meaning of said act, how Is
it he is required to take the oaths to
support the Constitution of the United
States and of this State. is
tits answered. that by the Sd. sec. OF
chap. 164, Code 1850, every attorney Is
required to take the oath of fidelity TO
the state, the form ofwhich is prescribed
by the 1st sec. of chap. 13; and by the
Act of June 26th, 1853, chap. 1S OF the
Code. is repealed, and the form OF the
oath of fidelity made to correspond
with the requirements OF the Constltu-
tion OF the new State, which is the oath
10 snpport the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution OF TINS
State. F
In the ease OF William A. Quarter
supersedeas from Kanawha county:
ouarrier had applied for admission to
the bar of the Circuit Court of Kanawha
county. the Judge of said Court refused
| fo peFniit him to be enrolled thereupon
| he adplied to this Court for sHperse-
IDEAS to the judgement OF the Court pc
low. ,-,..-,..-
yay, ~ tho (NOTFt
The same ruling must apply in this
| case as in the Faulkner case, although
| the petitioner had been in the Southern
army, he had taken the amnesty oath
| and had been pardoned for all treason
he may have committed against tne
| United States. It has not been con-
| tended that he has ever committed any
| trenson against this State, and If II had
| been SO contended the Court could not
| have refused to admit him unless he
| had been tried and convicted OF teio-
| nv. Nor can any Court suspend the IL
cense of an attorney unless ne mas oeen ssl
summoned to show cause why an IN
| formation shall not be filed against
him, tried upon such information and
| found guilty.a In such case the Court
may annul or suspend license.
It is the duty and province of the Leg
islature to make the law, c.;i- .s;,.., Az.
Il The Courts only pronounce upon the
Tbe Court below had no right tore
\ fuse to enroll the name of the petition
er and permit him to qualify as an at
torney. ,
~ MISoRITY REPORT.
Judge N. Harrison, dissenting, held
as follows upon the point decided by
! 'TssInI expounding the statutes ii is
i proper to look, itseems 70 me, to the Pc
i cnIfarconditio fthe country and to the
4 particular, exigencies and necessities
4 which existed when the act was passed.
1 The preamble, or purpose OF a statute Is
/ sometimes the only key which unlocks
4 It's meaning. If 1t Is not allowed 70 con-
4 troll any clear and express provisions
i to the contrary, yet, in acase OF uoupt-
4 ful phraseology, in determining the
\ meaning of a statute, the Court may
4 well look, and is frequently compeIleo
i to look to the mischief It designed TO
| remedy. and to the purpose and policy
upon which the act was founded. What
| we're tfese3 When this act was passed
1 in 1868 rebellion was at its height,
4 and war. was raging throughout the
country and the hands and the
\ hearts of all who are now affected
| bSsSti the operation of the act
4 were then engaged in most
4 criminal and dunWarrantabIec conspiracy
to defeat the very object which the Stat-
L ute was designed to accomplish. That
object was to uphold and maintain the
4 Union OF the States, and especially this
State, then struggling hard for lts ex, {,
istence, against those who contemned
\ its institutions, who denied its consti-
i tntfonality, and who were seeking TO
involve it in a. common desolation as
lyveii as crime. It was to keep out OF
Il the body-politic here, at least for sea-
! SON, the same mortuary element OF
SECESSION which was threatening to
4 destroy it elsewhere, and which had
already subjected the country to an al
4 most fabulous expenditure, both OF
EhIood and money. If this was the
i nolicy of the act, how is it possible TO
] reconcile IL with this motion? Is 1t not
Il contradiction in terms as well as prtn-
ciple 70 suppose that, whilst clerks, re-
corders, sheriffs, justices of the peace
and other ministerial or judicial
: officers are admittedly or at least
practically embraced by the act,
! that attorneys are excepted from
a rule to the expediencey or neces'
: sity for which they contributed, per
haps, more than any other class in the
! community? If judge upon the bench
must take the oath, (Which Is not dent-
ed.) why should not an attorney at the
! bar, who, in his various public duties
and relations, and especially in his In
: fuenee upon society, is probably mort
potential than even the Court, be re-
. duired to take it2 It seems to me II
: would be doing injustice 70 the Legis
such a distinction. I do not think tina
: they have made it. The constitutional
/ ity of the act has not been questioned
l 1t was statute peHde,ate beLLo, IL Is true
3 butit was not declared TO be repealed
!, by the virtue Of peace. 1t is still II