Race Distinctions in American LawStephenson, Gilbert Thomas
History
Race Distinctions in American Law
Stephenson, Gilbert Thomas
African Americans -- Politics and government; Law -- United States -- History; United States -- Race relations
Little within the scope of this chapter can be said of the Negro as a
judge. There are cases still in the North of Negroes sitting on the
bench, mostly in lower courts, and there may be instances, here and
there, in the South, of Negroes holding judicial offices. Certainly, the
Negro elector is eligible, both under Federal and State Constitutions,
to hold a judgeship. Whether or not there are Negroes on the bench in a
given State is not determined by the legislatures or the courts, but by
the appointing power or by the choice of the people at the polls.
AS LAWYER
A Negro is eligible to practice law in every State; that is, nothing to
the contrary appears in any of the State or Federal statutes now in
force. Negroes may be admitted to the bar everywhere upon proving the
same qualifications and passing the same examinations as required of
other applicants for license. But this has not always been so. The
privilege of practicing law in Iowa,[589] for instance, was, until 1870,
restricted to white males. In that year it was extended to women and to
members of other races than the white. Only one State appears to have
considered it needful to guarantee by statutory enactment the right to
practice law to the Negro. An act of the Colorado[590] legislature in
1897 reads: “No persons shall be denied the right to practice as
aforesaid on account of race or sex.”
In 1877, a Negro, with a license to practice law in Massachusetts and
the Circuit and District courts of the United States in the city of
Baltimore, applied for a license to practice in the State courts of
Maryland. The laws of Maryland[591] of 1872 limited the privilege of
admission to the bar to white male citizens. The Negro brought suit
because he was refused admission to the Maryland bar, and the Court of
Appeals of Maryland[592] held that the State had a right to limit the
privilege of practicing law to white males, holding that such a
limitation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said, in
part: “The privilege of admission to the office of an attorney cannot be
said to be a right or immunity belonging to the citizen, but is governed
and regulated by the Legislature, which may prescribe the qualifications
required and designate the class of persons who may be admitted. The
power of regulating the admission of attorneys in the courts of a State
is one belonging to the State, and not to the Federal Government. As
said by Mr. Justice Bradley in Bradwell’s case:[593] ‘In the nature of
things it is not every citizen of every age, sex and condition that is
qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the
legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason and
experience, for the due admission of qualified persons to professions
and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs
to the police power of the State.’” According to the opinion in this
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account