Exhibit C: Text of 49 Federal statutes provisions in which the United "Assault Upon Freedom of Association," a study of the southern attack on Religious groups' statements and resolutions on desegregation and human 1. "Catholic Bishops Speak on Racial Discrimination and the Moral Law," statement of principles and objectives, Catholic Interacial Council of Chicago, and signed by NCWC, November 14, 1958. 2. "Churches and Segregation," adopted by the General Assembly of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, December 5, 1957- 3. "Methodist Resolution on Integration," by the Council of Meth- odist Bishops; "The Methodist Social Creed," adopted by the general conference, 1956; "A Message on Vital Issues," board of social and economic relations of the Methodist Church.. 4. "A Message on Race Relationships," adopted by board of social and economic relation of Methodist Church, January 14, 1955, prompted by recent decision of the Supreme Court. 5. "The Bible Speaks on Race," board of social economic relations of the Methodist Church, adopted September 26, 1957-- 6. "Just, Right, and Necessary," a study of reactions to the Supreme Court decision on segregation with a statement of guiding principles, policies, and practical suggestions, the National Council, Episcopal Church, 281 Fourth Avenue, New York 10, 7. "The Convention and Triennial Daily," resolution on race is voted by bishops, October 11, 1958, volume 1, No. 6, page 2 (news 8. The Lambeth Conference, 1958, the encyclical letter from the bishops together with the resolutions and reports, Seabury Page 1496 1520 1524 1573 1527 APPENDIX-Continued EX PARTE WALL. (107 U.S. 265 (1882)) A rule was made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, which, after reciting that it had come to the knowledge of the court that W., an attorney of the court, did, on a day specified, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position thereupon cited him to appear at a certain time and show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll. The attorney appeared, and answered, denying the charge in mass, and excepting to the jurisdiction of the court, (1) because there was no charge against him under oath, (2) because the offence charged was a crime by the laws of Florida for which he was liable to be indicted and convicted. The court overruled the exceptions, and called a witness who proved the charge, showing that the hanging took place before the court-house door, during a temporary recess of the court; thereupon the court made an order striking W.'s name from the roll. On motion made here for a mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse this order, and he having answered the rule, showing the special circumstances of the case,-Held, 1. That although not strictly regular to grant a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be struck off the roll, without an affidavit making charges against him, yet that, under the special circumstances of this case, the want of such affidavit did not render the proceeding void as coram non judice. 2. That the acts charged against the attorney constituted sufficient ground for striking his name from the roll. 3. That although, in ordinary cases, where an attorney commits an indictable offence, not in his character of attorney, and does not admit the charge, the courts will not strike his name from the roll until he has been regularly indicted and convicted, yet that the rule is not an inflexible one; that there may be cases in which it is proper for the court to proceed without such previous conviction; and that the present case, in view of its special circumstances, the evasive denial of the charge, the clearness of the proof, and the failure to offer any counter proof, was one in which the court might lawfully exercise its summary powers. 4. That the proceeding to strike an attorney from the roll is one within the proper jurisdiction of the court of which he is an attorney, and does not violate the constitutional provision which requires an indictment and trial by jury in criminal cases; that it is not a criminal proceeding, and not intended for punishment, but to protect the court from the official ministration of persons unfit to practise as attorneys therein. 5. That such a proceeding is not an invasion of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; but that the proceeding itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due process of law. 6. That, as the court below did not exceed its powers in taking cognizance of the case, no such irregularity occurred in the proceeding as to require this court to interpose by the writ of mandamus. 2128 PETITION for mandamus. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Charles W. Jones for the petitioner. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court. A petition was filed in this case by J. B. Wall for an alternate writ of mandamus to be directed to James W. Locke, district judge of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue to compel him to vacate an order made by him as such district judge, prohibiting said Wall from practising at the bar of said. court, and to restore said Wall to the rights, privileges, and immunities of an attorney and proctor thereof. The petition set forth the proceedings complained of, and an order was made by this court requiring the judge to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The rule to show cause has been answered, and we are now called upon to decide whether the writ ought to be granted. The proceedings of the court below for disbarring the petitioner were substantially as follows: On the 7th of March, 1882, during a term of the said court, held at Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same court exercising both Circuit and District Court jurisdiction, J. W. Locke, the judge then holding said court, issued, and caused to be served upon the petitioner, the following order: "CIRCUIT COURT OF THE U. S., So. DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. “MARCH TERM, 1882. "Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this court that one J. B. Wall, an attorney of this court, did, on the sixth day of this present month, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law and its provisions, which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to respect and support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position: "It is hereby ordered that said J. B. Wall be cited to appear and show cause by eleven o'clock Wednesday, the eighth instant, |