The diploma is but the evidence in
convenient form of the fact that a
degree has been conferred. It is but
the evidence of a right, and not the
right itself. It neither increases or
diminishes the extent or enjoyment
of the right which exists independ
ently of it, Whether the law confer
ring this power on the Board is wise
or Unwise, and whether the Board in
the exercise of its power in this par
ticular instance, acted judiciously,
are questions with which this court
has nothing to do. This power, this
discretion had to be lodged some
where, and like all other human
authority it is liable to abuse. The
law makes the Board the judge of
the worthiness of those on whom it
nvy confers degrees. In my opinion its
ed decision does not admit of review by
ud I any other authority upon that point.
iat 1 eay this not because theie has been
* any attUmpt in this case to show that
lhe the deleiidauit was unworthy, but
to siunpi) to meet that branch of the
,w argument, which is predicated upon
le the supposed impropriety of allowing
is men, (who may not themselves be
he learned in the law) to admit persons
s" to that prolession.
s," It the Board had the power to con
n, ler, aud did confer on the defendant
on the degree of Bachelor of Laws, it is
it manilest that it could not by an
is ex parte and subsequent revocation
nd deprive him of the grant of any
or rights or frauchises flowing from it.
by See ex parte Uarlandi, 4 Wallace, p.
ie 47. 'llis view rendels unnecessary
ry any discussion of the motion of the
to plautlllf for new trial.
