Ex Parte Secombe.
register of the land office at Quincy, dated , which is in the words and figures following, to wit;” and that the said certificate, thus referred to, is not inserted in the exception, nor its contents stated in any part of the transcript, on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered by this court, that a writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby awarded, to be issued forthwith, and to be directed to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Illinois, commanding them to supply the omission above mentioned, and return a full and correct transcript to this court, with this writ, on or before the first day of the next term of this court.
Ex Parte, in the Matter of David A. Secombe.
By the rules and practice of common-law courts, it rests exclusively with the court to determine who is qualified to become or continue one of its officers, as an attorney and counsellor of the court; the power being regulated, however, by a sound and just judicial discretion—guarding the rights and independence of the bar as well as the dignity and authority of the court.
The local law of the Territory of Minnesota has regulated the relation between courts and attorneys and counsellors, but has not essentially changed the common-law principle.
The Minnesota statute authorizes the court to dismiss an attorney or counsellor if he does not maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers, or for not conducting himself with fidelity to the court.
The Supreme Court of the Territory dismissed the relator from the office of counsellor and attorney of the court, stating in the sentence of dismissal that he was guilty of the offences above mentioned, but not specifying the act or acts which, in the opinion of the court, constituted the offence.
The order of dismissal is a judicial act done in the exercise of a judicial discretion vested in the court by law; and a mandamus cannot be issued by a superior or appellate court, commanding it to reverse its decision and restore the relator to the office he has lost.
This was a motion for a mandamus to be directed to the judges of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota, commanding them to vacate and set aside an order of the court, passed at January term, 1856, whereby the said Secombe was removed from his office as an attorney and counsellor of that court.
The subject was brought before this court by the following petition and documents in support of it:
To the Hon. the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States:
The petition of David A. Secombe respectfully showeth:
That he resides in the city of St. Anthony, in the Territory of Minnesota; that on the ninth day of July, 1852, he was duly admitted and sworn to practice as an attorney and coun-
