New-York tribune., 1873-04-15
WoMANs RIGHT mo- PRACTICE LAW.


OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE nYRA
BRADwEIL CAsE-THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT SUSTAINED.
[FRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRIBUSEl
WASHINGTON, April t4.-The advocates OF
what is known as womans Rights" will be interested
IA the following opinion. which will be read in the
Supreme Court tomorrow by Justice Miller The case
was that OF "MyTa Bradwel agt. the State OF Illinois,"
The plaintiff in error resident in the State Of
Illinois made application TO the Judges OF the supreme
Court OF that State for license TO practice law enc
accompanied the petition Win the Hsual cernsa.e ron
an neror OF her good character, and that on an
examination she had been found to possess the requisite
qualifications. Pending this application she aso MED
an affidavit to the effect THAT she was born IN
the state Of Vermont mat she %as Snaa Seen' cen f
States, aud has been for many years past areshent
OF the City OF Chicago in the state OF Illinois Ana % %n
this affidavit she also hed paper caiiniuH .na1 unuea
the foregoing facts, she was entitled TO tue license
prayed by virtue OF the second section OF the Fourth
Article OF the Constitution OF the United states ana OK
the Fourteenth Article of amendment OF that instrument
The statute OF Illinois this subject enaets that; No
person shall be permitted to praece as an attorney OF
counselor at law or To commence conduct' OF uelenu
nay nSy,v @e'0% Concerned IN " any court Of record
| within this State, either by using or sub
other 5erson without having previously obtained
license that purpose from some two of the Justices
nerson receiving the attorney and counseorat-
law and shall authorize him 10 appear in all the courts
of record within this state and there 10 practice ar an
attorney y,Ins anu tbereof1 The supreme Court de.
med the application apparently upon the ground
that that it Was woman who made it., 1he
Re drv taken that the pahr asserted her right
license on the grounds, among otners tnat sne wac &
citizen Of the United States; and thak haVng oeen c
illinois entitled to any right granted 70 any ci1izen OF
the latter state. The Court having Oyerinled these
claims right, founded the claims of the Federal
Consultation before referred to, those propositions may
be considered properly before this Court. -;
As regards provision OF the Consultation that citi.
zens OF each state shall be entitled to all the privileges
and lmmuntes OF citizens In the several States. tho
plaintiff her affidavit has stated very clearly case
to which 1t is napplicable The protection designed by
that clause has been repeatedly held has no appica-
are aSH complained Of. II plaiqaf was a citizen
| OF the state of Illinois that provisen OF
| the Constitution gave her protection against
ats courts Legislature The plaintiff seems TO have
tSat She was born ia vermont While she remained in
Vermont that circumstance made her citizen OF that
Stale But she states at the same ilne that she now
czen OF the United States, aud that she Is now and
has teen for many years past resident OF Chicago Ia
the State Of Illinois The Fourteenth Amendment de-
cIares that citizens OF the United States citizens
STATE within which they reside. therefore panuf
states aud czcn OF the State OF Illinois. We
! here to say tha; there may not ne temporary
residence in one state, with intent 10 return 10 another
which will not create citizenship la the former But
plaintiff Dethnc 20 take her out Of tho den
| section OF the FUurtet nth Amendment.
In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment counsel fOr
plainh IN this Courutruy says that there are certain
privileges and mmunities winch belong To citizen Of
the United states as such; othtrTse t woull DE- non
sense for the Fourteenth Amendment 10 prohlOlt
| state from abridgiug thea; and lac proceeds 70
| argue that admission 10 the Bar OF state or :
person who possesses the requisite LED dfiiiug ana
character is one of those whicD a State may not
deny. In thls latter proposition we arc not able 10
concur With Couusel We aS6 With him tsat there
privileges and iiiihites belonging 10 citizens OF tho
Unod States in that relation ana character ana that II
is these aud these alone which Is forbidden 10
abldge. But the right 10 admission To practice law In
the court u state s not Of them. This right
sense depends citizenship OF the United States. IL
has not as far know, been made any state
or any TO depend citizenship ALL Certainly
many prominent and distinguished lawyers have been
admitted practice bUtn III the State aud Federal
Courts who citizens or the United States, OF
any State. But whatever basis this right may be
placed far II can have any relation citizenship
aC All IL would that 10 the courts of STATE
would relate tO citizenship Of the State and 10 Fcde
raj Courts would relate citizenship oI the United
States.
The opinion just delivered IA the Slaughter House
from Louisiana renders elaborate argument IN the
present unnecessary for unless We wholly and
radically mistaken IN tine ruc pies which those
decided the r1ght control and regulate the grant
ing OF License practice law In tue courts OF sate -
one powers which not transferred for pro-
lection the Federal Government aud its exercise IL ia
manner governed controlled by citizenship OF the
United states In the party seeking snch license lt Is
Sdry repeat tue arguments III when tDe JUG
ment IN th0se Is founded. II II sulclthl 10 say
they conclusive Of the present case Ie Judgment
Of the Stdte Court Is therefore aihrucd.