?0? U.S. Arguamnt fo? Ph?ntifi in Favor. the framers of the treat? for it were wholly unnecessary to specify rights which any and all foreigners enjoy, and wholly unjust to reduce to naught by the mere str?ke of a pen all the rights incident to citizenship created under the fisg of the for- mer sovereign; and, lastly, even though such a construction be admissible there existed at the time of the ratification of the treaty no law :disqualifying foreigners from becoming members of the bar in the Philippine Islands. Plan of Studies . (Plan de Estudice) of 1836; Royal Decree o? July 26, 1853; Vol. 5, Diecionario de Alcubilla, p. 423; Same, Vol. 6, p. 798; Vol. 1, Diccionario de Berriz (1888), p. 1341; Diccionario de 'Alcub?lla, p. 873, (Vol. 6); Vol. 3, p. 348; VoL 5, p. 428; Vol. 3, p. 357; Vol. 2, p. 566. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has neither power, jurisdiction nor authority to render in any proceeding had in this matter, a decision the effect of which would be to deprive plaintiff in error of the right to practice his profession. Sec- tions 21 to 25 of the Code specify the only grounds upon and the only manner in which a lswyer may be deprived of the right to practice his profession.. As well might the Philippine Supreme Court have declared that plaintiff in error was dis- qualified to practice because he professed a certain religious belief as to have assigned the reasons it did for such alleged disqualification. There can, therefore, be no question of adjud/ca? herein. The right of plaintiff in error to practice his profession is a vested right of which he may be deprived only by due process of law. For the proper .exereise and enjoymcnt of ,this right the recognition by the InsuLar Supreme Court, in the manner and form herein prayed, is essential. Cummings v. State o? Missou?, 4 Wall. 356; l?z parteGarland, 4 Wall. 366;/?l!/'s Ad? mi?/stra/?r v. Ua/ted States, 171 U.S. 226-223; Sm?t/? v. Uni- ted ?to/es, 10 Peters, 330; ?oulard v. t)n/?ed Sta?s, 4 Peters, 511; ?qtrother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, 411: B?aa v. Mennett. U.S. 179. And in Article VIII (2nd par.) of the Treaty of Paris is
�
