Gambar halaman

Page 1496







Exhibit C: Text of 49 Federal statutes provisions in which the United

States is authorized to seek injunction relief, prepared by Library of

Congress, February 19, 1959 (submitted by Senator Douglas) -
Exhibit D: “Out of Conviction," a second statement on the South's racial

crisis signed by 312 ministers of Greater Atlanta from January 28 Con-
gressional Record (p. 1180) (submitted by Senator Douglas) -
Exhibit E: “The Segregationists Go North,” article from the New Republic

by Helen Fuller (Jan. 26, 1959) (submitted by Senator Douglas) -
Reprisal and Violence in the South's Racial Crisis,” published jointly by

American Friends Service Committee, National Council of Churches of
Christ in the United States of America and Southern Regional Council

(submitted by Roy Wilkins) - .
Assault Upon Freedom of Association," a study of the southern attack on

the NAACP, American Jewish Congress... Religious groups' statements and resolutions on desegregation and human rights: 1. “Catholic Bishops Speak on Racial Discrimination and the Moral

Law,” statement of principles and objectives, Catholic Interacial

Council of Chicago, and signed by NCWC, November 14, 1958. 2. “Churches and Segregation, adopted by the General Assembly of

the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United

States of America, December 5, 1957.
3. “Methodist Resolution on Integration,” by the Council of Meth-

odist Bishops; "The Methodist Social Creed,” adopted by the
general conference, 1956; “A Message on Vital Issues," board

of social and economic relations of the Methodist Church.
4. “A Message on Race Relationships," adopted by board of social

and economic relation of Methodist Church, January 14, 1955,

prompted by recent decision of the Supreme Court..
5. "The Bible Speaks on Race,” board of social economic relations of

the Methodist Church, adopted September 26, 1957..
6. “Just, Right, and Necessary,” a study of reactions to the Supreme

Court decision on segregation with a statement of guiding
principles, policies, and practical suggestions, the National

, ,
7. The Convention and Triennial Daily," resolution on race is voted

by bishops, October 11, 1958, volume 1, No. 6, page 2 (news

8. The Lambeth Conference, 1958, the encyclical letter from the

bishops together with the resolutions and reports, Seabury

Press, 1958, pages 1-55 and 1-56..--
In re: George C. Wallace, brief for respondents.
Court cases.
Selected bibliography






2784 2786 1632 1604





(107 U.S. 265 (1882)) A rule was made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern

District of Florida, which, after reciting that it had come to the knowledge of the court that W., an attorney of the court, did, on a day specified, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take froin the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, onc John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position : thereupon cited him to appear at a certain time and show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll. The attorney appeared, and answered, denying the charge in mass, and excepting to the jurisdiction of the court, (1) because there was no charge against him under oath, (2) because the offence charged was a crime by the laws of Florida for which he was liable to be indicted and convicted. The court overruled the exceptions, and called a witness who proved the charge, showing that the hanging took place before the court-house door, during a temporary recess of the court; thereupon the court made an order striking W.'s name from the roll. On motion made here for a mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse this order, and he having answered the rule, showing the special cir cumstances of the case, lleld, 1. That although not strictly regular to grant a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be struck off the roll, without an affidavit making charges against him, yet that, under the spe cial circumstances of this case, the want of such affidavit did not render the proceeding void as coram non judice. 2. That the acts charged against the attorney constituted sufficient ground for striking his name from the roll. 3. That although, in ordinary cases, where an attorney commits an indictable offence, not in his character of attorney, and docs not admit the charge, the courts will not strike his name from the roll until he has been regularly indicted and convicted, yet that the rule is not an inflexible one; that there may be cases in which it is proper for the court to proceed without such previous conviction; and that the present case, in view of its special circumstances, the evasive denial of the charge, the clcarness of the proof, and the failure to offer any counter proof, was one in which the court might lawfully exercise its suinmary powers. 4. That the proceeding to strike an attorney from the roll is one within the proper jurisdiction of the court of which he is an at torney, and does not violate the constitutional provision which requires an indictinent and trial by jury in criminal cases; that it is not a crininal pro ceeding, and not intended for punishment, but to protect the court from the official ministration of persons unfit to practise as attorneys therein. 6. That such a proceeding is not an invasion of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; but that the proceeding itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due process of law. 6. That, as the court below did not exceed its powers in taking cognizance of the case, no such irregularity occurred in the proceed. ing as to require this court to interpose by the writ of mandamus.

PETITION for mandamus.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Charles W. Jones for the petitioner.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

A petition was filed in this case by J. B. Wall for an alternate writ of mandamus to be directed to James W. Locke, district judge of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue to compel him to vacate an order made by him as such distriot judge, prohibiting said Wall from practising at the bar of said court, and to restore said Wall to the rights, privileges, and immunities of an attorney and proctor thereof. The petition set forth the proceedings complained of, and an order was made by this court requiring the judge to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The rule to show cause has been answered, and we are now called upon to decide wbether the writ ought to be granted.

The proceedings of the court below for disbarring the petitioner were substantially as follows:

On the 7th of March, 1882, during a term of the said court, held at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same court exercising both Circuit and District Court jurisdiction, J. W. Locke, the judge then holding said court, issued, and caused to be served upon the petitioner, the following order:


“MARCH TERM, 1882.

“Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this court that one J. B. Wall, an attorney of this court, did, on the sixth day of this present month, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until be was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law and its provisions, which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to respect and support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position :

“ It is hereby ordered that said J. B. Wall be cited to appear and show cause by eleven o'clock Wednesday, the eighth instant,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »