The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1912-02-13
The Thatcher Disbarmcnt Case Ia
Ilcns County Courts.

'liic IitNltilpf IJiSDafnltnt Ou~t III
Lucas County Courts.
Charles A. Thatcher of Toledo, had
practlced law as an attorney and
counsellor i'm Ohio for nearly twenty
years. lie frequently represented or
ganzcd labor IN that practice. In a
pending case he severely criticised
Judge of judges OF the supreme
court of Ohio. The supreme court dis
barred him from practice i'm the
courts Of Ohio and permanently en-
joined him from again applying for
admission to the bar therein for such
singing criticisms.
This to Mr.. Thatcher and his fam
ily practically was eternal punish
ment or move out of the state. In
this the order Twas hgainst public
policy Of the state. MIR. Thatcher had
contracts with citizens of the state 10
attend to their legal and other busl-
ness as an attorney and counsellor
at law, which this subsequent order
of the supreme court would impair the
obligation. The supreme court seems
to have established a precedent i'm this
disbarrment case contrary 90 the do
cision I'm the Boone case; In the dis
barment case the supreme cour, con-
trary to second article of the Ordin-
ance Of 1887 and contrary to the con-
stitution Of the state OF Ohio, by its
law impaired the obligation of these
contracts between Mr.. Thatcher and
his clients because they were private
contracts made before the order OF
the supreme court disbarring him
from hlllug them. Thus 1t would APP
pear that the order OF the supreme
court permanently dsbarring Mr..
Thatcher Is unconstitutional; and that
part Of it's order prohibiting Mr..
Thatcher from ever again applying
for admission To the bar of Ohio,
seems 10 be clearly Unconstitutional
with a little spirit Of revenge in It. 7
know attorneys are regarded as Of
ilcers Of the court, acting under the
supervision of the judges, who have
authority 10 suspend them from prac-
tice. Put such suspensions cannot be
for such a length Of time that shall
Impair the law of contract previously
made. It can be temporary only and
never permanent, and such suspen-
sion cannot be unreasonably tempor-
ary even. In contempt of court cases
cruel and unusual punishments shall
not be inflicted. An order forever pro
hibiting an attorney from supporting
himself and family by following his
usual and learned and established oc-
cupation or profession, or leave the
state Is such an order, or an order 10
leave the state or take up some other
occupation unusual, seems cluel in
deed. This is carrying. in my opin-
ION the order of injunction too far
and beyond the contemplation OF the
constitution and the law. besides i'm
pairing the obligations of private con-
tracts previously made. Practical
banshment from the state cannot be
resorted to as a mode Of punishment.
Whether these criticisms were made
In the court in the presence of the
Judge or judges, under oath, l do not
know and am not informed, but in
any event the holdign Is that court
Will not act on charges made against
an attorney unless they be under oath.
Ii would seem further from the hold
ing Of courts, that the supreme court
of the state could not legally disbar
an attorney from practiclng before
any other court Of the state but could
for a reasonable temporary period
only, disbar from practicing in the SUI
.preme court, ana not then in cases be-
fore 1t whore such attorney therein
had been employed by the party plain
tiff or deferdent to such suit prior to
such order o. dlsbarment. 1t Is held
THAT an alto. 0ey has been stricken
from the rolls of one court for con-
tempt, Is not a sufficient reason for
excluding him from any other court"
The reason Is that this authority of
the court is for its own protection
only. Courts determine the causes
for the removal of attorneys, but they
must be determined according to law
we sometimes lose sight of liberty OF
speech and of the press and we often
mistake lawlessness for that liberty
Just so we sometimes lose sight OF
the rights of others, ana mistake our
own rights and thus become lawless
ourselves A judges judgment Is only
an opinion from his reason Of what
the law Is 1t may be erroneous 50
may any opinion or judgment of any
one be erroneous. IL Is the liberty
of speech and press to expose and cor
rect the error. This is public opinion
and this public opinion Is to secure
the cOnsttutionalty OF public servants
The Judgment OF a court Is public
affair. Public opinion is higher tri-
bunal than the supreme court of the
state or nation. In fact II is the
tribunal before which a corrupt or un
faithful public servant most fears TO