Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-11-07
UPPER COURT RULES
Appellate Tribunal Acts as to
Claim Attorneys.
OF DISBARMENT
Decision on the Appeal by Secretary
of the Interior.
EFFECT OF THE OPINION
Milo B. Stevens & Co., Harvey Spald-
ing & Sons and Edgar T. Gaddis
Directly Concerned.

The Court of Appeals late yesterday
handed down opinions in the mandamus
proceedings resulting from the disbar-
ment by the Secretary of the Interior OF
Milo B. Stevens & Co., Harvey Spalding
& Sons and Edgar T. Gaddis. claim and
pension attorneys Of this city. The judg-
ment of Justice Wright directing the issu-
ance of the writ of mandamus in the
Spalding case was affirmed, the court
stating in its opinion that the charges
against it, which had been denied, were
supported by no legal evidence, and that
therefore the Secretary had acted beyond
his power in disbarring the firm. The
action of the court, it is explained, results
in the restoration of the firm to practice
before the department.
In the cases of Milo B. Stevens & Co.
and Edgar T. Gaddis the Court OF APP
peals reversed the judgments of Justice
Wright on the ground that the effect or
their answers in the Interior Department
to the charges against them was to admit
such charges, and obviated the necessity
of the taking of proof in support of them
The effect of the courts decision in these
cases is to affirm the right and power OF
the Secretary to disbar the attorneys In
the manner in which 1t was exercised.
Appeal Bond Unnecessary.
The court further stated that the Secre-
tary had the right, under the law, to take
appeals without giving appeal bonds. as
he was acting in his official capacity. AS
to the right of the members of the Court
of Appeals to act in the matter of grant
ing appeals when beyond the jurisdiction
of the District of Columbia. the court
held that it was unnecessary to express
an opinion on the subject, as even If the
special appeals had been improperly
granted its decision that the Secretary
had the right to take the general appeal
without giving appeal bonds brought the
cases properly before the court for re-
view.
The attorneys named were charged by
the Secretary with unprofessional con-
duct in dealings with their clients, the
principal specific charge being that they
had purchased bounty land warrants
which they had procured for their clients
for inadequate prices. Following their
disbarment by the Secretary they insti-
tuted mandamus proceedings against him
to compel him to restore them to prac-
tice. Justice Wright directed the issu-
ance Of the writs on the ground that the
Secretary had given them no notice of
the taking Of various dispositions by Of
flcials of the pension Office in support of
the charges, and had thus deprived them
fronted by the witnesses against them.
Differs From Judge Wright.
The Secretary thereupon appealed to
the Court Of Appeals. and Justice Wright
made an order requiring him to give ap-
peal bonds in the various cases, the pen
alties amounting in the aggregate to
$50 600.
The Secretary. being unable or unwill-
Ing to give these bonds. procured orders
from Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard of the
Court Of Appeals, who at the time was in
Virginia, ana Mr.. Justice Robb of the
same court. who was then in Massachu-
sets, allowing special appeals from the
orders requiring him to give the appeal
bonds. The matter having been again
brought to the attention of Justice
Wright, he required the Secretary to
give appeal bonds in the same amount as
condition to his taking appeals from the
last named orders, making a total bond
Of $184,OO0. Again the Justices of the
Court of Appeals were sought. and they
thereupon made an order allowing an
other appeal. and directing that the Sec
rotary should give no bond whatever, and
staying the execution of the judgments
directing the issuance of the writs of
mandamus.
Two days were consumed shortly after
the fall meeting Of the Court Of Appeals
in the argument of the cases by counsel
United States Attorney Baker and AS
sistant United States Attorney Mcnamara
appearing for the Secretary of the In
terror, and Attorneys Tucker &, Kenyon,
r. s. Bailey and L. A. Pradt for Harvey
Spalding & Sons, Attorneys henry e.
Davis, w. 7. S. Curtis and Barnard &
Johnson for B. Stevens & Co. and Attor-
neys Brandenburg & Brandenburg for
Mr.. Gaddis