The national Republican., 1867-01-15
The Courts.
SUPREME CoURr OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME CoURr OF THE UNITED STATES
MesDAr, January II, 1867.
On motion Of Hon. r. johnson, L. Z. Holden,
Esq, of Cleveland, Ohio, was admitted an attorney
and counsellor Of this court.
No. 194. John A. Cummings, plaintiff In error.
vs.. The State Of Missouri, In error 10 the Supreme
Court Of the State Of Missouri. Mr.. Justice Field
delivered the opinion Of the court, reversing the
judgment Of the said Supreme Court in this cause
with costs, and remanding the cause, with direc-
tions to said Supreme Court Of Missouri to enter a
judgment reversing tho judgment Of the Circuit
Court Of Pike county In this cause, and also with
directions to the said Circuit Court to enter an
order discharging the defendant. John A. Cum
mings, from imprisonment, and permitting him to
depart without day.
No. 9, original. Ex.parts In the matter Of A. H.
Garland, Of ArkanSas, petitioner, on petition for
leave TO practice, TO-, and
No. 8. Ex.parte In the matter Of r. H. Mari, Of
Louisiana, petitioner.
Mr.. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of the
court In these cases, granting the prayer Of peti.
tioners.
ORDER OF coURr.
II Is now here ordered by tho court that the
amendment TO the second rule Of this court, which
requires the oath prescribed by the act Of Congress
Of January "a, 1895, to be taken by attorneys and
eounsellors, be and the same Is hereby rescindsd
and annulled
Ogden Hoffman, District Judge Of tho United States
for the Northern District Of California. On motion
for prohibition, 40, Mr.. Justice Miller delivered
the opinion Of the court overruing the motion for
Q prohibition.
No. 81. Thomas J. Davidson, plaintiff In error,
vs.. W. L. Lanier, curator, &o., and
w. W. L. Lanier, curator, DO. In error to the
Dltrict Court Of the United States for the North.
ern District Of Mississippi Mr.. Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion Of tho court In these cases.
reversing the judgments Of the said District Court
with costs and remandng the cases to said District
Court for now trial, In conformity to the opinion
Of this court
No. 70. The Union Msnufaot turing Company, ap.
pellants, vs.. John D. Lounsbury Of al. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
district Of Connecticut. Decree Of the Circuit
Court in this cause affirmed with costs by divided
court.
No. 80 Tho United States, plaintiffs In error, vs..
Moses Macdonald OF al. Tho argument Of this
cause was concluded by Mr.. Attorney General
Adjourned until tomorrow at IL o'clock
Deeision is the Test Oath Cases- The Oath Held
| 10 BE- UnoonstittitioHak-Ep Parts, A. II. Garland
and r. II. Marr.-These were the cases Of applioa-
tion to practice in this court without taking the
oath prescribed by law, which have been frequently
| reported In items proper.
| Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion Of the
court holding that the act Of Congress prescribing
| the oath was unconstitutional and void, because
exaoting IN oath which, II the party could not
take, amounted TO q civil Inc C0nhtltu-
tion had prohibited such legislation In Its proyi
sions against bills Of attainder.
This oath was not prescribed as q means Of in
suring good moral qualifications In those who do.
sired TO practice as lawyers, but was In reality
puni,hpisnt inflicted for having taken part in the
rebellion against the United States.
The law Imposes disqualification on account Of
certain offences, which was not prescribed at the
| time the offences were committed, and hence 10
retroactive in that respect and Is therefore void.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the dissenting opin.
| ion, In which the Chief Justice and Justices
swayno and Davis concurrsd, holding that the
| lawyer had no absolute right to practice, but
merely a right established BY law.
| The client had an absolute right to appear in
person, but tho lawyers qualifications were, and
always have been, prescribed BY law: No inalisn,
able right Of the petitioners, therefore, had been
abridged by the law In this case, and they were
| not entitled to complain Of the law
Er parte John A. CHmmiHgS-The petitioner
In this case Is the Rev. DR.. Cummings, Of Mis-
souri who was prevented from exercising his func.
tons as a minister Of the gospel, BY reason of his
not having taken an oath prescribed by the new
constitution of that State, the provisions of which
were similar to those Of the oath In the above cases.
Tho decision In this case is substantially the
same as that In the Garland and Mari cases, the
same Justice delivering the opinion Of the court,
and the same Justice delivering the dissenting opin-
lon; also cOnourred In by the Chief Justice and
Justices SWayne and Davis
The constitution of the State Of Missouri Is held
to be rSpugnant to the Federal Constitution In re-
spect to this oath, and therefore void.
The Importation of Timber from Canada HHdsJ
the late Reciprocity Trsaty-Whsn may an article
DO said 10 be 30 tohOis or in part "MannfaeHrsJ ??
The United States rs. j. i. QHinby and ono Other
eaSe,-This action Is brought to recover Of the de-
PENDANTS for dnties alleged to be due upon certain
lumber imported by them from Canada, which ID
described as 'split white oak timber" designed
mostly to be used In the manufacture Of the long
shovel haudle. They arc described as straight,
square Piees Of timber Of one and thresfOurthi