Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1867-02-01
LOCAL NEWS.

LOCAL NEWS.
TUK TEST OATH QuEsTrox-Shdu ne O1,k
required for admission 70 ne District Bar be Sc,
assdes-Cesrf in General Term-rhis morning,
the motion N adr .by Mr. Bradley for the ad-
mission Of Col. A. Il 'Maeruder 10 the Bar of
ihe Supreme court OF, thr District OF CoIum
b'a, was taken mp. lChef ustice Cartier, and
Justices FisheT, 0lin and Wyle on the bench
Col. Marrpder, 1t will be recolleeted, asks 10
be admitted without being REQ uired TO take
the oath under the act Of j uly :, .ls62, com :.
monty called the Test Oath."
The argument was opened by Col Magru
der, who pruce eded TO discuss the powers of
sne court in the imposition Of rates and its
relations TO The supreme court OF the United
ast creating the Supreme Court OF the District
OF COLUMBIA To showsthst the Judges were
empowered to make rules regu LATIN the prac-
hce IN the several courts; but 10 was question
able whether they had tss DO yer TO make
rules Tor admission TO the bar under this act
This Court taking the place OF the old Crini-
nal, Cireuit and Dtstrics Court we should
look to see what rules governed them, and
then back TO the courts OF Mary land by which
the District was coded, in which they could
find no authority. He believed this Court
at imprudently in the adoption or this
rule; but &C might be justified or excused by
the exigeneies of the time, which had now
ceased 10 exist. The rule anticipated the act
of Congress which prescribed the oath. the
rule being made in March, 1861 while the sr:
prescribing the oath was passed in 1862, and
was made applicable TO attorneys by the
amendatory act of January, 1865 The ques-
lion arises whether in adopting the rule the
Court dia not adopt q rule in conflict with the
Constitution of the United States AMI the
laws of the land. If the State of MARYLAND
had no right TO pass q law imposing a test
oath, tteE Congress by virtue OF the right 10
legislate locally for the District had no rIyht
to impose a test oath.
Chef Justice Cartier asked IL the State of
oath that they believed in the Christian re-
ligien.
Mr.. Maeruder remarked that that was pre-
scribed before the adoption Of the Don situation
of the United States. He did not recolIecteyer
having taken il.
Judge Cartier remarked that II a.pearsd
from the records that the gentleman had taken
Mr.. Bradley said thar there was a series ~
oaths which were taken. some of which were
excepted to.
Judge Cartier remarked that he had no,icsa
a number of names following the oafhs re-
ferred to, but he did not know how many wer.
traitors.
Mr.. Magruder said he was al 8 loss to know
why law pronounced by the u. s. Supreme
Court, the highest tribunal in the land mil
and void, should beI enforced here IN soft
must be shown that there is something inter
cepfiDg the relations with this court, The T.
= Supreme Court bore the appellate relation
TO this court. He proceeded TO discuss tbs ra
lationship OF the old courts Of the District and
read from the act OF August %, i-i, an 5th
statutes, page 5li.) amendatory 10 the act of
August 90, 17S9, 10 show that the ruIes of the
Supreme Court Of the United States are appIi-
cable to the L. :. courts, referring also 70 :,
decision IN Sd Howard This court standS in
the same relation as other U. S courts 10 the
Supreme Court of the United States
In answer TO question by Judge Cartier,
Mr.. Magruder read the 10th section of the act
creating this Court claiming that il provided
that the same relations TO the United States
Supreme Court borne by the old courts should
~ hU Ia
court could not DO an uncon stitutional act or
violate a law. When an act has been decided
by the highest tribunal in the land to be nm
insist on it,
Judge Wylie remarked that the question was
whether the Court had power TO make rules
ior the admisslon to the bar, Tor this rule was
being enforced as a rule and not as law
Mr. Magrnder answered that the court had
such power, provided that they did not violate
a law of the land; and he argued that the rule
noun1ed null and void.
Chief Justice Cartier said that the only cues.
ton was, whether the decision came here man
datory or adyisatory.
Mr.. Magruder proceeded to argue that the
rule now operates ez port taeto, reading from
Dallas condensed Reports, page I76. What
does il provide -.
Judge Cartter-It provides that thew shall
no, nave given aid or comfort to the rebellion.
MI Magruder.-That comes near home 10
myself SIR, but l am willing to meet it. Any
posed by law at the time the act was COM
United Is an eI pose facto law. He would sug-
gest that the condirion of things existing az
the time the rule was made was Changed and
there was no necessity for the enforcement OF
the rule now. He asked to be restored to his
former privileges as q right and in conclusiou
spoke OF his having been an officer OF the late
Confederate army, and stated that whate yer
onehees he had committed rs such had been
condoned by Executive pardon, humbly sub.
hitting that ne could be excluded only bv a
n rR0a hs -
profession
Mr.. Totten followed, in opposition 70 the
motion, taking the ground that the court had
marking that it was admitted that this was the
pioneer case, skirmish from the rebel lines
and large number were awaiting the decision
OF the court He had taken the trouble TO ex-
anime the record, and found mis- name recorded
TO an oath that he would support the 20. stitu.
ton OF the United States, and that be believed
IN the christian religion, under date OF Dec.
l2th. 1857 Now would the court give the gen.
Items its certificate that he is a man of char.
acter, that treason and perjury were the eIe-
ments Of fair character!
Mir Magruder begged to explain, and denied
that he had been guilty of either of these Of
fences. He was citizen Of Virginia as also
a native. but raised here. He left the District
while Virginia was yet in the Union, and
went where his relations and his properly
were. The State required his allegiance and
had the power to coeree his allegiance 1t was
Impossible then TO know what was TO take
IL, I
bis sympathies were with the people of his
section, and he desired the triumph of his
friends. He did not leave the District for the
purpose Of entering the rebellion.
Mr.. Totten suggested that If the gentleman
mad been compelled TO enter the Confederate
service, there was no difficulty about taking
the oath.
Mr.. Cook followed in opposition 70 the mo-
ton, and after Remaining that he had been
asked TO appear In the case by citizens Of the
District. he proceeded TO state that the uiti
mate question will be shall rebels be admitted
to the bar OF this court The decision Of the
supreme Court was not mandatory to this
court. Every court had the right to make its
own rules for the act Of 1889 is left in full force
by the act Of 1865. He read from 9th wheaton,
page $50, 4th Peters, l0s, 10Th Howard, page .,
70 show that the Supreme Court had not inter.
fered with the rules Of inferior courts. The
thpnders Of the Su prems Oourt OF the United
States could not be heard here except rs man.
datory. The decision Of the Su preme Con RI
on the test oath was not entitled 10 profound
respect, being bare major lily Of the Oonrt
stI juggling into birth. -
Mr.. Bradley remarked that as q citizen he 4
not could cit and hear the Supreme Court of
United States spoken Of unexpectedly; there
was ruiz Of the court on the subject, and he
asked tha&1t BE- enforced. -
Chief Joafice Cartier did nof undar.,sna