Ex Parte Secombe.
ney and counsellor in its courts, and also enumerated the offences for which he may be removed, and prescribed the mode of proceeding against him. And the relator complains that it appears by the transcript from the record, and the certificate of the clerk, which he filed with his petition for a mandamus, that in the sentence of removal he is not found guilty of any specific offence which would, under the statute of the Territory, justify his removal, and had no notice of any charge against him, and no opportunity of being heard in his defence.
It is true that, in the statutes of Minnesota, rules are prescribed for the admission of attorneys and counsellors, and also for their removal. But it will appear, upon examination, that, in describing some of the offences for which they may be removed, the statute has done but little, if anything, more than enact the general rules upon which the courts of common law have always acted; and have not, in any material degree, narrowed the discretion they exercised. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to enumerate and define, with legal precision, every offence for which an attorney or counsellor ought to be removed. And the Legislature, for the most part, can only prescribe gereral rules and principles to be carried into execution by the court with judicial discretion and justice as cases may arise.
The revised code of Minnesota, (ch. 98, sec. 7, subdivision 2,) makes it the duty of the attorney and counsellor “to maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers.”
The 19th scction of the same chapter enumerates certain offences for which an attorney or counsellor may be removed; and, among others, enacts that he may be removed for a wilful violation of any of the provisions of section 7, above mentioned. And, in its sentence of remaval, the court say that the relator, being one of the attorneys and counsellors of the court, had, by his acts as such, in open court, at the term at which he was removed, been guilty of a wilful violation of the provision above mentioned, and also of a violation of that part of his official oath by which he was sworn to conduct himself with fidelity to the court.
The statute, it will be observed, does not attempt to specify the acts which shall be deemed disrespectful to the court or the judicial officers. It must therefore rest with the court to determine what acts amount to a violation of this provision; and this is a judicial power vested in the court by the Legislature. The removal of the relator, therefore, for the cause above mentioned, was the act of a court done in the exercise of a judicial discretion which the law authorized and required
