The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-04-12

Ing liabilities upon corporations created
under the laws OF the state, ID unconstf-
tutional n void because II does not I'M
pose III liabilities and burdens upon
eral government over which the state has
no sovereign power says the court in
conclusion. Because the state has not
the power to burden the necessary gov
ernmental agencies with a license tax il
no reason why IL may not impose such
liability upon corporations. companies or
persons within the sphere of its power.
because they are within the state by vir-
tue Of Its laws or its permission. The
judgment appealed from is affirmed"
The decision In the Bloor d.sbarment
proceedings was prepared by the whole
court. The contention of Bloor's attor-
ney that the supreme court had no juris-
diction because no complaint or accusa-
ton was filed and because the citation
was not issued In the name of the state
was the chief point considered by the
court. The court shows that according to
the law an attorney convicted of a felony
involving moral turpitude makes it his
duty to know that the legal result of
such conviction will be his disbarment.
The court unequivocally declares that the
case involves one of moral turpitude. the
contention of Rloor's counsel to the con-
trary. The case may be carried to the
supreme court of the United States on
Ntht ehoahit THAT IL ~ Z W III
federal constitution. Mr.. Walsh. Bloor's
counsel. says that he contemplates car
ryfng the case higher. The courts pin
ion Is as follows.
THE respondent, John Bloor. was con-
victed of a felony. The conviction was
sustained by the court on Bloor's appeal.
(See State VS.. Bloor. q Mont. p; So
Pac. Rep. p. y After the remittitur
from this court was forwarded to the
district court of the First judicial dis
trict, In and for Lewis and Clarke coun-
ty. in which respondent was convicted.
the clerk of said district court pursuant
to the provisions of section Az. code of
civil procedure. transmitted to this court
a certified copy of the record of convic-
ton. The respondents counsel now be-
fore this court objects to our jurisdiction
because no complaint or accusation has
ever been filed as a basis for a proceed
Ing to disbar said Bloor, and because the
citation issued herein to said Bloor is
not styled The State Of Montana as re-
CURED by the constitution.
w believe no complaint or accusation
in writing Is necessary where an attor-
ney and counsellor has been convicted of
a felony or misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude, and where the record of con-
viction has been duly certified to this
court. We also think that II is not neces-
sary to issue or serve any citation upon
an attorney or counsellor. of proceedings
to disbar hin where he has been con-
victed of a felony or misdemeanor involv-
ing moral turpitude and where the record
of his conviction has been duly certified
to this court before this court acts. where
such record is the basis of the dis par
ment proceedings. 1t Is the bounden duty
of such attorney so convicted to know
that the legal consequences of his con-
viction is his disbarment. There is no
discretion In the supreme court, for it
must proceed (under section AIS, code of
civil procedure) on receipt of a certified
copy of .he record of conviction; and by
section 402, same code. the record of con-
viction is conclusive evidence.
I'm some cases upon the record certified
to this court. perhaps the question may
arise whether or not the offense of which
the attorney has been convicted involves
moral turpitude or not, but i'm the pres
ent instance IL so clearly does that il
admits OF no argument to the contrary.
Let judgment be entered pursuant to
section 42s. code of civil procedure"