Year: 1874

The Indianapolis News lately published the following. It needs no comment and we submit it without any:

 The other day a young law student of Terre Haute, applied for admission to the bar there, but having excited somebody's ill will by his action on the temperance refOrnl-we don't remember whether he opposed it or not-he was objected to on the score of" moral character" The State constitution requires no qualification for the bar but "goOd moral character" and as that was denied to the Terre Haute ap- plicant, he was cut out of 8 profession and means of support. The Express asks, with a pith and pertinence that compress the whole case into the question and it's an- SWer, "why should a man be refused ad mission to the bar for disqualification which will not exclude him after admis- siOn?" Verify, we should like an answer to that constitutional cOnundrum. What is "gOOd moral character" good for if it can not purge the bar of vile men imprOp- eTly admitted, or lapsarians from cOnsti tutional purity after admission? The bar is just as bad with bad men in it who have become bad after getting in, as it is with bad men who should never have got in, and the constitutional qualification was meant to keep out. If none but men of "good moral caracter' are meant to getin, then none but men Ot that character should stay in. We should like some "cutter Of cummin" to grapple that propO- sition for the benefit of at least One-fOurth of our Indianapolis bar and of every bar on the face of the earth. That portion at least lacks the element of pure character. EXpel from, our or any other, every law yer who is not pure, moral and conscien- tiOus, and you will leave hardly enough to hold court. Remove every judge whose character, measured by no very strict con StructlOn of the constitutional standard, is not "good moral" one, and you will empty half the benches between Baffin's bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Why apply the exclusion against admission and not against retention, if it be the purpose of the requirement. to make the bar a "moral" institution? And if that is not the purpose what is it for?

 The fact is, that when the constitution was amended in 1850 there were good many political Quacks in the con- nostrumS on all occasions. " LlberaliZing the professions" was one of these. So was the privilege of suffrage to aliens, to men who were not citizens of the United States, had never sworn allegiance to our govern ment, and had not been in the country long enough to know an election from military conscription. These were Demo- cratic fancies and resulted in such "fancy' legislation as this Terre Haute case illus trated. A good moral character" is val uable to any man, but it is not indiSpensa- ble to lawyer or doctor nor always to preacher. If it were, some of the most successful members of our bar would never have climbed into notice or business. certain amount of intellect and intel lectual cultivation and of professional knowledge is indispensable in the law and Tn all professions, and the old system of admission to the bar required some test of these, and none of moral" The new system exacts qualification which is no qualification and excludes those which are. Moreover It requires test of that which no human power can test, a mans heart, hlS moral nature, his sincerity, his purity of intention. Courts have generally, to their credit, paid no attention to provis- ion that is too indefcient to be cOmpre- nended and too impracticable to be appli ed, and have admitted to the bar with no other qualification than the endorsement or some existing member. But they might improve on this laXity, by construct ing constitutional "mOral characters" " to mean "cOnduct" and courtesy" and excluding man who wantonly insults a witness, especially a woman, or indulges in personal reflections on parties, counsel or witnesses, without justification. Under this really practical and fair construction good moral character" may be made the means of disbarring lawyers who disgrace the profession, who can not be reached by the ordinary provisions against miscon- duct. The standing shame of our bar is It's license of treatment of those who are pOWerleSS in court. parties and witnesses. The constitutional provision might remove 1t by removing those who create 1t.