92 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument f?r Plaintiff in Er?r. ? U.S. possess the political qualifications required by law for the prac- tice of his profession in the Philippine Archipelago." Plaintiff subsequently filed a. petition for rehearing, accom- panied by additional certificates and affidavits as to his pro- fessional and personal reputation. In this petition he claimed to be entitled to practice his profes?on under Article IX bf the Treaty of Paris and under � of the Code of Civil Procedure, which had been enacted since the date of his first petition. The petition for reheating was denied- by the court in an opin- ion rendered by the Chief Justice, 1 Philippine Rep. 88, which held that petitioner had not lo?t his Spanish nationality, but was a Spanish subject upon an equal footing with other foreign residents who were not entitled to practice the legal profelon under the law, either prior or subsequent to the Treaty of Paris. In january, 1906, plaintiff in error presented to the court the following motion: "Appears Juan Garcia B?que and asks that the Honorable Supreme Court be pleased to declare that the petitioner has a right to practice as an attorney at law in the Philippines be- fore all courts. This motion is founded upon the accompanying affidavit." The aftdavit referred to stated that the affiant, on April 10, 1899, and for eight years immediately prior thereto, had prac- ticed law continuously before the courts of the islands. The Supreme Court overruled the motion, and thereupon plaintiff sued out this writ of error. Mr. Edgar W. Camp for plaintiff in error: The qualifying clause, in the Treaty of Paris, "being sub- j?ct in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners," is not conclusive against the right to continue the practice of his profession as claimed by plaintiff in error, be- cause, first, there is nothing in the context of the article quoted nor elsewhere in the treaty to warrant such a construc- tion; secondly, because no such intention is to be imputed to
�
