Bosque v. United States
Plaintiff in error applied to the supreme court of the Philippine Islands in February, 1901, to be admitted to practise law in the Philippine courts. His petition was supported by various certificates as to professional qualifications and good character, and set forth that petitioner was a graduate of the University of Manila, and practised law in the Philippine Islands from 1892 until the cessation of the Spanish courts; 'that he is of good character, and has not been inscribed in the record of Spanish nationality, in consequence whereof I have lots this, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of Paris, and therefore I am neither a subject nor citizen of any foreign government, and consequently, in my opinion, have the condition required by general order No. 29, July 19, 1899, of the United States military government in these islands, for continuing the practice of my profession.'
July 27, 1901, the petition was denied by the supreme court, without opinion, on the ground that the applicant 'does not possess the political qualifications required by law for the practice of his profession in the Philippine archipelago.'
Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for rehearing, accompanied by additional certificates and affidavits as to his professional and personal reputation. In this petition he claimed to be entitled to practise his profession under article 9 of the treaty of Paris [30 Stat. at L. 1759], and under § 13 of the Code of Divil Procedure, which had been enacted since the date of his first petition.
The petition for rehearing was denied by the court in an opinion rendered by the chief justice (1 Philippine, 88), which held that petitioner had not lost his Spanish nationality, but was a Spanish subject upon an equal footing with other foreign residents who were not entitled to practise the legal profession under the law, either prior or subsequent to the treaty of Paris.
In January, 1906, plaintiff in error presented to the court the following motion:
'Appears Juan Garcia Bosque and asks that the honorable supreme court be pleased to declare that the petitioner has a right to practise as an attorney at law in the Philippines before all courts. This motion is founded upon the accompanying affidavit.'
The affidavit referred to stated that the affiant, on April 10, 1899, and for eight years immediately prior thereto, had practised law continuously before the courts of the islands. The supreme court overruled the motion, and thereupon plaintiff sued out this writ of error.
Mr. Edgar W. Camp for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 92-94 intentionally omitted]
Solicitor General Hoyt for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 94-95 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court: