National Republican., 1883-04-17
THE SUPREME COURT.
A DiSbarred Attorney Refused Writ Of
Mandamus TO Restore Him.
A Vigorous Dissenting Opinion by Mr.
Justice Field--An Interesting Case.
Congress Declared 10 Have Entire Control Of the Mater
Of Rank and Pay Of Retired Officers,
A Railroad Tax Case-speculRtions on
Margins-Rnilway Aid Bonds.

Margins-Rnilway Aid Bonds.
The first decision rendered by the United
States supreme court yesterday was in the
case No. 8, original OK parte J. B.Wall. This
was petition by disbarred attorney for
writ Of mandamus to compel United States
district judge to restore him to tho bar. J. B.
Wall, the petitioner, was an attorney in good
standing, duly authorized to practice in the
circuit and district courts of tho United States
for the southern district of Florida.
On the sixth of March, 1882 the Hon. James
w. Locke, United States district judge for
that district, then holding court at Tampa,
Fla, was informed that tho petitioner Wall
had just participated In the lynching Of a man
known 10 the court as John" who was in
Jail at Tampa awaiting trial on charge of
rape. Judge Locke cited Wall to appear
before him the next day and show cause
why he (WalD should not be dis
barred for having joined rotous mob
and assisted in taking out of the
hands of justice and hanging prisoner in
tho custody of the state. Wall, the petitioner,
appeared in obedience to the citation, but
demurred to the right of the court to issue
the rule served upon him. Afterward Wall
was heard by counsel, and the court took
the matter into consideration. On the tenth
of March, by an order Of the court, Wall was
dsbarred.
He now prays the supreme court of the
United States for writ of mandamus to
compel the United States district Judge to
restore to him his rights and privileges as an
attorney of the court in good standing, on
the ground that his disbarment upon mere
information and belief as TO the charges made
against him, and without duo trial and con-
viction according to the laws of the state and
of the United States, was unconstitutional
and void.
The court holds, in long and elaborate
opinion by Justice Bradley, that while it may
be general rule that previous conviction
should be had before striking an attorney off
the roll for an indictable ,otiense committed
by him when not acting in his character of
attorney, yet the rule is not an inhexiblo one
Cases may occur in which such a requirement
would result in allowing persons to practice
as attorneys who ought on every ground of
propriety and respect for the administration
of the law to be excluded from such practice
A criminal prosecution may fail by the absence
of u witness, or by reason of u flaw in the
indictment, or some irregularity in the pro-
ceedings, and in such cases, even in England,
the proceeding to strike from the roll may be
had. But other causes may operate to shield
n gross offender from a conviction Of crime,
however clear and notorious his guilt may
be--a prevailing popular ex citement, power
full influences brought to bear on the public
mind, or the mind Of the jury-and many
other causes which might be suggested; and
yet all the time the offender may be SO COW
cred with guilt-perhaps glorifying in it
that it would be disgrace TO the court TO be
obliged to receive him as one of its officers
clothed with all the prestige of its confidence
and authority. 1t seems to us that the cir
cumstances of the case, and not any iron rule
on the subject, must determine whether and
when it is proper to dispense with prelimi-
nary conviction. Where the case is clear and
the denial evasive there is no fixed rule of
law to prevent the court from exercising its
authority.
Undoubtedly the power is one that ought
always to be exercised with great caution, and
ought never to be exercised except in clear
cases Of misconduct which affect the standing
and character of the party as an attorney.
But when such case is shown to exist the
courts ought not to hesitate from any feeling
of pity for the individual to protect themselves
and the public. The execution of the duty
is u rightful one, and when exercised In proper
cases is no violation Of any constitutional pro-
vision. The petition is denied.
Justice Field read long and carefully pre-
pared dissenting opinion, in which he main
tained that while an attorney might properly
be disbarred for professional delinquency
that is for improper or disgraceful conduct in
his professional business, or business con-
nected with or growing out Oh his profession
he could not be disbarred or compelled to
show cause why he should not be disbarred
for an indictable otiense wholly distinct from
his professional conduct and in advance of
trinl and conviction,
If one court" Justice Field said can
upon information communicated to its. judge in
any other than legal way, that public Of
fcnse has been committed by an attorney call
upon him to show satisfactorily that the
charge is unfounded, or be disbarred, 30 may
all courts which have the power to admit
attorneys, and of course this court. And
what a spectacle would be presented If, upon
reports like those in this case, or even upon
written charges that attorneys in different
parts of the country have committed
murder, burglary, forgery, larceny, en-
bezzlement, or some other public oAense,
than could be cited here TO answer sum-
marily as to such charges without be-
ing confronted by their accusers, without
previous indictment, without trial by jury
and of course without the benefit Of the pre-
sumptions of innocence which accompany
every one until legally convicted. With what
curious and wandering eyes would such pro-
ceedings be watched when should be sum
moned ON charge Of murder, b ON charge
of burglary, O of larceny, ID of having vio-
lated his marriage VOWS, and Others on charges
embracing different feonies. Such proceed
ings would be scandalous, and would shock
the mind of every one who regards with favor
the guarantees of personal rights in the con-
stitutiOn.
1t is not for every moral ofIense which may
leave stain upon character that courts can
summon an attorney to account. Many per-
sons eminent at the bar have been chargeable
with moral delinquencies which were Justly
the cause Of reproach 10 them, but IL is only
for that moral delinquency which consists in
a want of integrity and truth and renders the
attorney AN unsafe person TO be trusted with
the legal business OF others that the courts
can interfere and summon him before them
for his conduct. He is disbarred in such case
for the protection both of the court and of the
public
A conviction of felony or misdemeanor
involving moral turpitude implies the alb
senco of qualities which fit one for an office
of trust where the rights and property of
others are concerned. The record Of con-
viction is conclusive evidence on this point.
Such conviction can follow only regular
trial upon the presentment or indictment of
grand jury. 1t cannot follow from any
proceeding of the court on motion to disbar.
To disbar an attorney for an indictable of
fense not connected with his professional con-
lai friu ~ oil inti 10 np1x ta