National Republican., 1885-08-13
A KNoTTY QUESTION.
ATTORNEYS, VINO ARE ALSO C0MMls'
sIoNERs, DfsBARRED.


sIoNERs, DrsDAHRED.
The Interior Department has recently
made decision which is likely 10 affect
the practice of number of attorneys be-
fore that department.unless they comply
with construction given to the law appli.
cable to the case. One lawyer has al.
ready experienced the full force of it by
being disbarred, and it is fair to presume
that other attorneys in similar position
will be treated in the same way.
The point raised is one that has never
been noticed before, and if the stand as.
sumed is correct ii will upset number
of attorneys in their practice before the
departments, particularly those recog.
nized as United States com missioners.
Mr.. James II. Vaudeville is the law.
yer referred to in the particular case who
has been disbarred from practice
before the Interior Department because
he was United States commissioner
while engaged in prosecuting cases be-
fore the department.
Yesterday morning he presented at the
clerk office, addressed to the judges of
the supreme court of the District Of Co
lumbia, the following order issued by
the Interior Department under date Of
July 81 and addressed to himself:
Referring to your letter. of the 10Th utimo
| inclosng papers with view to your recogni-
| tion before this department, from which II mp.
| pears that YOU hold an appointment as United
States court commissioner, you are informed
| that commissioners Of the circuit court are re-
| Unr baI hv npDnrtmnnt
class of officers of the United States for whose
appointments (by the courts oflaw) provision Is
madoi the last cla ause of tho second paragraph,
section 2. article 2, of the constitution, and
are by section 5i98, of the Revised Statutes. u.
s.. prohibited from prosecuting or assisting IN
the prosecution ofany claim against the United
| States. Your application for admittance to
practice must therefore be denied.
In continuation the paper states that
James II. Vaudeville was admitted to
practice as an attorney of the supreme
court Of this District about Oct. 10, 1870,
and before the United States Supreme
Court Oct. 20, 1877, and that he is now
member Of the bar in good and regular
standing and ever has been since his first
admission to practice, not only before
the courts named, but also before the
court of claims.
Mr.. Vaudeville also informs the judges
that on Nov. %, 1871, the court made an
order appointing him an examiner in
chnncery of the court and United States
commissioner. He further states that on
June 30 last he was permitted to repre-
sent client before the commissioner oi
Indian affairs until he had received per-
m'seion to practice before that officer by
the secretary of the Interior, although,
as was well known, he has been prac
ticing lawyer before the Interior Depart
ment in land mining and patent cases ever
since Sept. /, 1875. Not desrous ot
having any controversy with an execu
tive officer of the government he
promptly applied for such permission
and answered certain questions, one o
which was, "Do you hold any Office
under the government of the United
States?" He acknowledged that hC
held the Office of United States commits
sioner, whereupon the assistant secre
tary of the interior disbarred him from
practice before the department. Mr.
Vaudeville states that he is unwilling tc
apply for any writ Of mandamus to b,
restored to practice, or institute suit fol
civil damages as a redress for the outrag
inflicted upon citizen, who, contrary t,
the constitution, which says that no per
SON shall be deprived Of life, liberty, o
property without due process Of law, ha
/ been deprived of his livelihood withou
any process Of law, he formally, bu
, under protest, resigns the office of Unite
States commissioner, and asks the judge
q to Immediately accept his resignation, i
4 order that clients at a distance who hav
. intrusted their business in his hands ma
not be robbed of his services as counsel