Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1873-04-24
1he Right 10 Practice Law mot Depeadl.
cmt upOn Cltixcnsnhtv. 9e


The United States Supreme Court
has affirmed the decision OF the Su.
prcmc Court of Illinois refusing the
right of Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Of Chi
cago, to practice law in the courts of
that State. Mrs. BradwelI based her
right TO license 10 practice by virtue
of the second section Of the fourth
article of the L. S. Constitution. and
the fourteenth amendment. Setting
forth that she was born in Vermont.
that she had been a citizen of that
State, that she was now a citizen OF
the United States, and a, resident of
the State of Illinois, and that having
been a citizen Of Vermont at one time
she was now in the State Of Illinois
entitled to any right granted to any
citizen of the former State. The Court,
In delivering its opinion, all the Judges
concurring, said: d
Gas regards the provisions Of the
Constitution that citizens Of each State
shall be entitled 10 all the rights and
mmunities of citizens in the several
States, the plaintiff in her affidavit has
stated very clearly her case, to which
IT is inapplicable. The protection de-
signed by that clause, as has been
repeatedly held, has no application to
a citizen of the State where the laws
are complained OF. III the plaintiff,
was q citizen of the State of Illinois,
that provision of the Constitution
gave her no protection against its
courts or its Legislature. The pIaiu-
till seems to have seen this difficulty.
and attempts to avoid it by stating
that she was born in Vermont. While
she remained in Vermont that circum-
stance made her citizen of that State.
but she states at the same time that
she is now a citizen of the United
States, that she is now and has been
for many years past q resident of Chi
cago, in State of Illinois. The four
teenth amendment declares that
citizens of the United States are citi-
zcns Of the States within which they
reside; therefore the plaintiff was, at
the time OF her application, citizen
of the United States and a citizen of
the State of Illinois. We do not here
mean to say that there NAV not be
temporary residence in one State with
intent to return to another, which will
not create citizenship in the former !:
but the plaintiff states nothing to take
her case out of the definition Of citi-
zenship of the State as defined by the
first section of the Fourteenth Amend.
mcnt.
In regard to the Fourteenth Amend
ment. the counsel for the plaintiff
In this case truly says that there are
privileges and iBI,ninitics which be-
long to Il ciiizen of the United States
as such otherwise il would be non
sense for the Fourteenth Amendment
to prohibit State from abiidging
them; and he proceeds to argue that
admission to the bar of the State of a
person who possesses the requisite
learning and character is one Of those
which. the State may not deny. In
this latter proposition we arr not able
TO concur with the counsel Weagre
with him that there are privileges and
immunities belonging to citizens 81 the
United States in that relation and
character and that it is these, and these
alone, which II State is forbidden to
abridge. The right to admittancc to
practice law in the court Of q State is
not one of these. This right in no
sense depends on citizenship of the
United States. Ii has not, as far as
we know. ever been made in anv State.
or in any case, to depend npon citizen
ship at all. Certainly many prominent
and distinguished lawyers have been
admitted to practice, both in State and
Federal Courts, who were not citizens
of the United States on any State.-
But on whatever basis this right may
be placed so far as it can have any
relation to citizenship at ali it would
seem that, as to the courts of the State.
II would relate to citizenship of d
State, and as to the Federal Courts it
would relate to citizenship of the Uni-
ted States.
Judgment Of the State Court afiirm-
ed. q