Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1869-01-26
THE COURTS.
The Case OF Nr. Bradt.y-The Return 20
the Writ of Naudamus.

EriOT- proceeding with he calender. NJ court
IN submission TO the ms ndate of the Supreme
Court of the United States, have con cluird 10
have the following order entered:
IN tie mater Of Joseph H. Brad'sy-Oc;obsy
T.rm, i-ts.-ln obedience 70 a mand anus from
tie supreme Court of the United States, 10 OF
tarte Jos. II. Brady, No :, Decent Der Term
sol, II l. Ord'r'd, That the order made IN this
cause on the 9Th OF November. is5, directing
the DsIne OF the said Joseph III. Bradley to b.s
stricken from the roll of attorneys soil .i,ors
&C. authorized 10 practice In this court be re-
sCIIded. and that the order now made be ,ertt-
fled to The SAID supreme Court as the retGrn OF
SAID mandamus
Of course this court In passing this order
SIMPLY yield obedience 10 The supremacy of
authority We make the order, baclus 80 the nj.
innate tribunal commands H. Its impossible
10 follow he logic of the opinion in its detail
l. + ~ would involve this court in hopeless en-
oafrsssment and render II Impossible TO carry
INTO effect these PLAN and manifest intentions
81 lne act OF Congress creating this court.
Nevertheless the prophecies OF judicial life
c. mpel us 10 weld 10 the dIc,a of the order.
merely the mandate of a superior power. The
DECISION OF that court was based upon The
tn"Cry that this Cour; had no jurisdiction over
The Offences of its attorneys co nmitt in one
OF The branches OF the court. and that InFsmuch
a. he offence against an IndCpenden,
tcurt, the punishment of the offence must e.
need ont there not here. In prOnouncIug
either OF the branches OF this court as an
mcependency II must certainly have ben
N-ry amusing 10 The applicant for this
MAI daTus, VINO had denied the an
tnCIIty of This inferior court 10 set upon his
Ca-~ Tor me reason that the Iurisdi ion resi- d
h.r"- 10 assume that that or thu Circuit or the
I>tTIct Court l. an Independent tribunal is 10
assume that the law making power for this
b'Strlct cd not understand the language thay
employed 10 carry Their own views mo etf+cl.
They spoke OF unit of but one couI. They
have provided Tor but one clerk. Tn y have
provide d for but one seal. The effect OF this
de CI>IOn Is 10 dismember Bradley from a bar
hat never existed, for the Criminal Court
never had bar. except so far that bar Is de-
Tlved rom the admission TO the Supreme Court.
mas no roll of attorneys. ani never had since
It's organization; has no seal; mas no clerk hes
none OF the other regalIa of an Indsp ndsnt
court, and cannot have under the organization
OF thse< stem of our courts. Il Will a seen
therefore. that 10 Is utterly impossible for this
court 10 carly out the logic of ITS opipi m
which Is the duty of a subordinate court. when
a. can be reached by the legal mac hinery that
surrounds il. If We would erect Tue Criminal
Court INTO an Indepe ndent court we nave not
the power To DO II. We have no powe 10 ere
att a seal for that court; We have power 10
create a clerk for that court; we have no power
10 create III either Of the justices of this bench
the authority TO test the writs OF that court and
In none OF the badges of independent jurisdic-
tIOH does the act permit Us TO out the logic
OF the opinion. We shall not attempt % do n
This Court, except so iar as il T. infarfered
with by direct power, will pursue the sys,em
Of jurisprudence In tins District orda'pcs nv
the Inv maker of the District, and studIousIy
followed Tor these six years of experience in
the study OF the bar and the bench 10 ascertain
" hat was the legal creature here styIed the
"Snpreme Court of the District OF Columbia
But IBasmuch as a majority of the Supreme
Court of the United States has discovered a
tribunal there for purposes of attorneys prac.
nsng and Inasmach as they have declared In
ent CT That he Is member of that bar and In
his acts was not a member of this: ina,mucb
as they have created roll of attorneys where
none ever existed before, We prOpo,e IN the
subm issiOn thar is due from an Inferior fri.
bunal 10 lis superior TO yield the dicta OF the
opinion. 10 the extent of Its ruling a fact in
reference 10 the restoration of EradI.y TO pr,e
uce. No further. ltwoUld ne doing the high
est violence 10 all the rdt.0adIe Of the const.nc-
non or our system of Jurisprudence here 10 10
aDything more than that We could not do II
II We would; we would not dc IL If we could
Why this was done il il difficult Tor m. to
detel mine. l do not know what nay he the
rcf.CaIIs OF my associates, but the oply solution
OF II that can discover was IN the necessity OF
creating separate jurisdiction, to lay the
foundations OF a writ of mlndsmus in a want
OF jurisdiction here, to give to writ of mauda-
mus The Office of writ of error, which il has
been serving IN this curious proceC ding to raise
IN The supreme Court Jurisdiction through
The writ of mandamus that did moi exist m
error tor be ~ remembered, all the jurisdiction
they mold is by legislative power Thy have
no common-law Jurisdiction. Their original
jurisdiction lie more restricted than that of anv
tribunal IL the United States. There are but
TWO or three cases where they can exercise il
uLder the Constitution. 1t exists solely by the
aathOrIty and grant of the law making DO ger
and inAsmuCh as The right Of appeal WAS NOT
created, t4ls elastic witt of Dland mus il made
20 serve its purpose. and inasmuch as il could
not he ayaIled OF without first creating a Iuris.
dIclion in the Criminal Cont, and DENYING one
here, il was accordingly created there, and
Geh ld here, undoubtedly with the very wISest
of pa poses.
For.s,yseIf do not feel 8, liberty to let this
Iudiaas act Of force pass ~itp3u, reasserting
th2t The supreme Court OF the United N'afs-
u; DO more control over toe relsuons OF tins
n II IN IL haS
over he relations of this bar TO them That The
power resides Inherently In every court to reg.
piete the relations Of the bar with itself Oo:h
il admission 10 and dismissal from the bar, and
without II with Que defer, n, y the power and
dignity OF no court can be maintl aimed, with IL,
there Is no danger 10 well intended member
of the bar, as the history of the profess II Is
E ho VII through ages. The moment the au hor-
Ity IL delegated 10 one court 10 preside over the
personal relations between mem Oers of tue bar
AND another court, that court not sitting amid
them, nor being subject TO the infiueoces of their
como uct, nor exercising control over such, there
l. an end 10 the indepence of judicial tribu mails
This protest-which do not ass sumo TO say
l. The protest OF the court, but my own wholly
l., think, the protest Of the professional m nd
everywhere. 1t must essentially b. ths protest
OF the professional mind. Then, with this pro-
list thus hurTIedly uttered. / commit this
order 10 tue record of THIS court.
am instructed by my brethren to have also
eatertd another order. which is Ia the folloE
l 1g words
NJ supreme Court OF the Y nIted States hav-
ing decided III recent case that toe act OF 4 IA
gI.ss of Sd OF March, 1-tf}, entitled IAN act Ia
II rganize the courts of the District of Column
bIH, and for other purposes" created, in ad0i-
ut n To This court. several other District Courts
II pectively, each having power to punish
coh'ampts and misconduct on the part of mem
D. r 81 the bar pTactlcing therein: for the DUR
poe OF this court 10 the prime pies of tue saln
decision, and OF establishing h salutary rule of
comfy among all the courts organized under
sad act, such as prevails between the courrS
81 Westminster Hall; had, by virtue of author
ity derived from The 35th sectIou of the IudI-
cary act of lag. authorizing the courts of the
UIIted Sfat,= 10 establish rules for the adnls-
sion of such counsel OF attorneys a. they NAV
respectively permit TO manage aud conduct
causes therein. and by virtue also, of authori
e inferred on this court III express terms by the
Aforesaid act of Sd of March, 1853, 10 establish
such rules as II may deem necessary tor the
regulation OF the practice of the several courts
Organized by said act, and from time to time
revise and alter such rules, II is
ordered, That no attorney OF counsellor who
has heretofore been or may hereafter be- sus-
pended from practice, or dismissed the bar by
order OF either OF the courts organized by said
act, 'or contempt OF court OF professional mis-
conduct. shall be allowed 10 practice in any
other OF said courts, 80 long a such order shall
remain IN force; provided. however, that any
person so suspended from practice or di missed
the bar may appeal from such order to thIs
court, as in other cases, (save when such order
made by This Court In General Term.)
The Chief Jusuce.-The case Of Lount vs.
Snit, Is the first case 10 be heard this morning
Mr.. Bradley. Sri beg leave 10 inquire
your honor, whether the last order prevents nv
practising in this court, (the Court in General