meaning of the statute of Virginia, requiring all persons
holding any office, or place, under the commonwealth, to take an oath
against duelling, does not perhaps conflict with this view. The case of
Byrne's Admr's _v._ Stewart's Admr's (3 Desaus. 478), may, however, be
found upon examination somewhat at variance--not the decision itself,
but the views expressed by Chancellor Watres in his opinion. The case
simply decided what would seem unquestionable, that the legislature had
a right to prohibit any public officer, judicial or otherwise, from
practising as an attorney or solicitor. The Chancellor said, "He (a
solicitor) can he considered in no other light than that of a private
agent for the citizens of the country, who may employ him to do their
legal business in the courts; and although the law requires of him
certain qualifications, and he receives a license from the judges, yet
his office is no more a public one, than would be any other profession
or trade, which the legislature might choose to subject to similar
regulations, and which is the practice in many other countries. It
cannot be doubted, that a man's trade or profession is his property; and
if a law should be passed avowedly for the purpose of restraining any
member of this bar, who was not a public officer, from exercising his
profession, I should declare such law void." This is to assume high
ground; but the idea that a man's profession or trade cannot be
constitutionally interfered with by legislative enactments, seems
scarcely tenable, and especially, so far as the profession of the law is
concerned, in view of the absolute power with which every court is
clothed, both as to the admission of their attorneys, and forejudging or
striking them from the roll. Act of 14th April, 1834, s. 73 (Pamphlet
Laws, 354). Courts of record and of general jurisdiction, are vested
with exclusive power to regulate the conduct of their own officers, and
in this respect their decisions are put on the same footing with that
numerous class of cases, which is wisely confided to the legal
discretion and judgment of the court, having jurisdiction over the
subject-matter. Commonwealth _v._ The Judges, 5 Watts & Serg. 272; _Ex
parte_ Burr, 9 Wheat. 531; _Ex parte_ Brown, 1 Howard (Miss.) Rep. 306;
Perry _v._ State, 3 Iowa, 550; In the matter of Wills, 1 Mann, 392. "The
power is one which ought to be exercised with great caution, but which
is, we think, incidental to all courts,