Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-11-16
Justice Cole Refuses Writ of Man
damus in Wedderburn Case.
STATES REASONS FOR HIS DECISION
Holds That Disbared ATTORNEY Had
Been Given Fair Hearing.
AN APPEAL PROBABLE

Judge Cole, sitting in Circuit Court No. 1,
today refused to command the Secretary
| of the Interior. by writ of maniamus to
revoke his approval of the recommendation
OF the commissioner of patents that John
Wedderburn, the patent attorney, be dis
barred, and give Mr.. Wedderburn an oral
hearing before finally passing upon the
commissioners recommendation In rem
dering his decision, Judge Cole held that the
GiSbarred attorney had been given a full
fair hearing on the charges preferred
against him, and that, therefore, his peti-
ton for the writ of mandamus would have
to be denied. Mr. Wedderburn's attorneys,
Messrs. r. Ross Perry and Jere NJ. Wilson,
will probably carry the case to the Court
of Appeals.
Prior Proceedings.
The readers of The Star have been made
familiar with the filing of charges last sum-
mer against Mr.. Wedderburn, the long
hearing before the assistant commissioner
of patents, the recommendation of the COM
missioner of patents that he be disbarred,
and with the approval by the Secretary OF
the interior OF the commissioner recon-
mendatlon Following the Secretary's ap-
proVal OF the commissioners recommended
t1on, counsel for Mr.. Wedderburn filed a pc
ution for the writ of mandamus, claiming
that he, IN being deprived of the right to
practice before the Department of the In
terror, had been dispossessed of a property
right without due process of law. They
further contended that before approving
the patent commissioners recommendation
OF disbarment Mr.. Wedderburn should have
been gwen an opportunity to appear before
the Secretary and show cause why the ap-
pIoval should not be made.
The matter was fully argued before
Judge Cole several days ago, and this
iC Siy,er 1f t1,.x
Cole SAID, after reviewing the contentious
OF counsel, that the relator, Mr. Wedder-
burn, claimed that the Secretary had no
Jurisdictional power to make such appro-
val except upon notice to the relator, a
contention, however, with which the judge
said ne could not agree. Then Judge Cole
referred TO the law applicable in such
cases. and also to rule of the department.
saying that the real question in the case
before him was whether rule 0, which had
been followed in the matter, was due pro-
cess of law. He held that it was and that
the Secretary did not delegate to any subor-
dnate officer any duty the law reserved to
him. 1t was apparent, 100. remarked the
court, that the Secretary did net act in any
perfunctory or arbitrary manner, it being
clear to the court that he exercised his.
judgment upon the whole case, including
the evidence arguments and recommended
tions of the commissioner of patents.
Review of the Charge.
Judge Cole said that Mr.. Wedderburn was
furnished with copies of the charges and
given hearing before the commissioner of
patents, his attorneys also being given an
opportunity to present their views orally
and by printed briefs. Remarking that the
United States Supreme Court has decided
that due process of law need not neces-
sarily be a trial before a court of law, or
constitute proceedings as formal and exact
ing as those in court of law, Judge Cole
held that the order of diSb3r rment was
made only after the petitioner had enjoyed
full, fair hearing, and, therefore, in due
process Of law.
The decision of the commissioner of pat
ents, explained Judge Cole. was not com
plant on which the petitioner was entitled
to hearing before the Secretary, and the
judge also remarked that the statutes do
not provide that there shall be in such
cases an oral hearing before an executive
officer. The judge also referred to the fact
That 1t was not contended that Mr.. We'd
derburn has additional testimony to offer
in his behalf.
On the whole, Judge Cole said, In con-
clusion, that he could not say that the re-
fusal of the Secretary to hear oral argu-
ments was oppressive, unjust or arbitrary.
and therefore the petition for the writ of
mandamus would be denied.