The national Republican., 1868-12-07
THE CSpURTH.

THE COUhTB.
IT.. DisSRIcr surs.x. 0ognrx, :, General 1srm.- :
Saturday, and then adjourned until next Sat
urday. 10. A \ u. y
THE PlsuxR.BRADLxY CASE.
to the ioiIowinr as their return to tho rule Of
the supreme Court Of the United States, re-
9uiring them to show cause today why q man
turn Joseph II. Bradley to his position as an
attorney In their court, from which he was
ousted by Judge Fisher at the conclusion OF
the surratt trial last year. The return is as
To the Honorable ne chief Justice and the A,so.
eiaie Jusi'oss Of NE Supreme Court Of ns United
The justices Of the Supreme Court Of the
upon them, In this ease, to show cause why a
ndndamus should not Issue. requiring them to
restore the said Joseph II. Bradley to the once
Of an attorney Of said court, respectfully
i. Because said Bradley was removed from
s sa ose Of attorney o. saS aoort only
and he had been heard In defence, and after
mature consideration by the court. That said
order OF the court was judgment Of the court
aive Jurisdiction, and not subject to review In
any other court; and especially not, In this
The question ss TO the Jurisdiction Of the
Supreme Court OF the United States to reverse
the judgment of an inferior court, In cases OF
this character, BY maHddmui, was decided In
to incorporate 10 this return several para.
graphs oil the opinion In that case, delivered
by Chief Justice Taney:
"a sGntgns," says the Court. %h.s s been en-
the judges Of the Supreme Court OF the Terri
tory OF Minnesota, comm nding them oyacate
and set aside an order OF the said court, passed
at January term, 1855, whereby the said Sc.
combe was removed from his ONCE as an at.
torney and counsellor Of that oourtn
"In the case Of Tilllnghast ys. Conkling,
which came before sh1, sou5t A. ia saSSnry @
The case is not reported, but brief written
opinion remains on the tiles Of the court, In
which the court says that the motion is over.
ruled upon the ground that 1t had not jurisdic-
tion in the case"
"Ths removal of the attorney and counsellor
In that case took place In district court OF
circuit court; and In a court Of that character
the relations between the court and the attor:
neys, and oounsellors who practice In II, and
bs sn .n
we'll settled by the rules and practice OF COM
mon law courts, that II rests exclusively with
the court to determine who is qualified to be:
come one OF Its officers, as an attorney and
counsellor, and for what cause he ouShtto be
"The Court, l. seems, were of opIniou that
out Il; and whether this decision was errone.
Gus or not, yet II was made In the exercise of
judicial authority, where the subject was
fore, be reversed in this form OF proceeding"
The opinion, In this case, was referred to-,
with appreciation, by this court In the recent
case, er pdrte Garland, Wallace, as we shall
II IL be authority, 1t would seem to be con.
elusive in the present case, and your respond.
ents might rest their defence upon 1t alone.
But since this court has declared, on several
occasions, that 1t would not grant rule to
show cause why pdnddmus should not issue,
except on prind fdcit case, and the decisions,
known to the court which made them, we are
not at liberty to assume, as certain, that your
honors will regard them as applicable to the
case now before you, or, II applicable, that
1t is incumbent upon US, therefore, to go
farther and show other cause why the present
rule should be discharged.
was holding q criminal court, and after reading
q statement Of facts in reference to the con-
duet OF said Bradley towards the said Judge,
closed, and growing out Of said trial, made an
order that said Bradley should be dismissed
from the bar Of the Supreme Court OF this
"Mr. Bradley. Has the court adjourned yet,
"Judge Fisher, No, sir.
"Mr. Bradley. Then, before II does adjourn.
| desire to say, in the presence OF this audi. ,.
ence, that the statement you have read Is false
Thus far the accuracy OF this report Is not
denied, but the petitioner alleges that the con
troversy was continued, as follows!
Judge Fisher. Crler, adjourn this court.
adjourned.
"Judge Fisher. You can say what you like.
II you W lsh to make speech to the crowd
you can do SO.
have 'i no Eight Fight to " expel S me. The SaprsSe @
Court alone can do that.
Judge Fisher, Qeaving the room.) Very
well; you can takean appeal
tion OF the dialogue tends to qualify the char
acter of the scene which preceded 1t.
1t can hardly be doubted that this was gross
contempt OF court, II there was a court sitting
At the time, and justified expulsion, unless
atoned for BY ample apology.
But no apology has ever been offered. On
the contrary, the contempt has been defended,
and Its publication attempted even before
this court
One OF tho grounds OF Justification is, that
had no power to make the order Of expulsion,
which produced the act OF contempt; and that,
therefore, the contempt was eordm non Judiee.
whether the Judge had authority to make the
order, but as to the contempt after the oricr
had been made, and contempt can never be
coram non judice In open court.
The other ground OF defence for this conduct
10, that the act was not contempt OF the
Supreme Court OF the District OF Columbia-
that court having, subsequently,, taken up the
subject, de Hor9, and removed the petitioner
But at the time the contempt was given
Judge Fisher was holding q supreme Court,
such supreme Court. There 10 no criminal
court in this District; there Is, therefore, no
Judge Of a criminal court In this District. The
cult % and nd % sriminsi % court, Of The % pistriot Of
Columbia, and transferred all their several
powers and jurisdictions to the Supreme
Court, created to take their place. II pre-.
seribes in what manner said supreme Court
shall exercise those powers and jurisdictions,
One OF the justices shall hold criminal court;
another q circuit courtj third the special
one OF the justices may at the same time hold
two or more OF these courts. But these several
justices, when holding courts in this manner,
own, for the law has given them none. Their
powers and Jurisdiction are those OF the "Su-
preme Courtp' and these II Is which make a
dlctlon Of the Supreme Court Of the District
OF Columbia are exercised, Is that court The
Supreme Court OF the District holds the cTimi-
nal court, and the law makes one judge the
The contempt In question was, therefore, a
contempt Of the authority OF the Supreme
Court Otherwise no member of the bar could
be dismissed for the contempt OF the authority
of the court, unless such contempt was offered
to the court In general term. Thus protected
any member might, II so disposed, land this 10
should the petitioner succeed In the present
attempt,) walk round the courts, from one to
another, denouncing the judges as liars, ssrid-
fin, and the court would be powerless to rid
itself Of his presence.
This conduct OF Mr. Bradley, however, was
not merely a contempt OF the authority Of the
supreme Court OF this District. but was also
gross misbehavior in his Office Of attorney,
and for this reason, albo, his offence was cog.
niZable by the court In general term irrespec.
tive Of the doctrine of contempts,
1t 10 true that the rule TO show cause