New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-01-27

oense was against an independent Court the punish.
ment must be meted ont thefe ana not mere II was
majority the Supreme Court OF the United States
read the gao law St tso Tcn
Criminal and District Courts were independents tribunals
vas to assume that e q, iV tbo sn
Court Of the District OF Columbia The law spoke OF the
Court as unit as Court IT made but clerk and
provided for hut one seal The effect Of this decision
to dsbar Mr. Bradley from bar that never existed for
the Criminal Court never had bar except In far
that bar was derived the Supreme Court Of the DIS
trict had roll Of attorneys no seal no clerk had
no regulations Of an independenL court ana could not
have under the organization Of the present system 1t
would, therefore be seen that was nttey Impossible
out the logic Of the opinion of the Supreme Court Of the
United States Bnt inasmuch as the supreme court OF
was O member OF the Criminal Court and not member
OF the Supreme Court Of the District OF Columbia mas
much 1t created roll Of attorneys when never existed
before the Supreme Court of the District would yield TO
the command OF the Supreme Court OF he United states
Criminal ConTt The supreme Court Of the District Of
Columbia could DO no more bv S Su ana doN %ou
was difficult for him to determine The only
creating separate Jurisdiction to lay the foundation Of
this mandaus The Supreme Court OF the United states
had no common law jurisdictions Its jurisdiction was
more restricted than that Of any other court nasmuch
the writ OF appeal was not created In such case as ha
before them This elastic writ OF mandamus was issued
to serve Its purpose For himself he did not feel permit
ted TO let this judicial act OF force pass without reasseI
more control the relations Of the bar of this Co9rt
than this Court had in the relations OF the bar OF ae S
every court to regulate both admission and dismissal
from Its bar. S,..-,-,.
For these reasons which ChiefJustce Cartier elabo:
entered his protest against the proceedings OF
the Supreme Court OF the United States and he Thought
this was the protest Of the professional mind everywhere
The Supreme Court of the United States having decided
that under the act Of 1868 organizing the supreme Court
of the District OF Columbia, several other courts were
created each having power to punish for contempt OF
misconduct therefore, for the purpose OF accommodating
the practice Of this Court 10 the principles OF the de
cision of the Supreme Court OF the United states,
and OF establishing salutary RUE OF oohHy
among all the courts organized under the ACT
of 1863 such prevails between tle
Courts OF Westminster 10 ia ordered that no attorney or
COUNSELLOR has heretofore who may hereafter De
suspended from practice dismissed from the bar Dy
order either OF the courts organized by sald act LOT
contempt OF court professional misconduct shaIl %
allowed practice any Of said courts so long as suoh
order shall remain in foree prortded however tht an
attorney II suspended from practice or dismissed tho
bar may appeal from that order this court or In other
cases tile same when such order OF suspension or DTS
missal shal have first made by the Court In the
General Term. ~,
Mr. Bradley inquired whether this order readmitted
him 10 practice the bar Of the Supreme Court OF tic
District OF Columbia, 80 -,
Judge Cartier did not give him positive answer, but
ntmaed that the gentleman would ascertain during the
term. Lawyers gay the mandamus OF the supreme
Court OF the United States does not relate 70 the Cfna
Court and as Bradley disbaTred BY Judge Fiher
I'm that court order OF the Supreme Court OF the Dis
trc operates prevent the maudamus from having any
practical effect In the Supreme Court OF the District pro
vded the Supreme Court viii recognize such eompn-
ance with the mandate Il II