Bar Examining Committee, attesting that she had studied law in his office for three years and that she possessed the requisite qualifications for admission to the bar. The members agreed to allow Hall to be examined for the bar, subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Errors on its legality. Hall had many supporters nationwide who believed that her admission to the Bar would be important for women's suffrage. An editorial published in the Hartford Courant stated: "It is to be hoped that the members of the Hartford county bar will not see fit to put themselves on the illiberal side, on the pending application of an accomplished lady for admission to the bar. When women are allowed as teachers and as physicians without question, it would be taking a long step backward to refuse their admission to the bar. It would be regarded as a confession of fear on the part of men." Another article stated, "Those very earnest and patient people of both sexes who advocate woman suffrage will look upon Miss Hall's success in getting a decision in her favor as an important contribution to the triumph of their cause." In re Hall In May 1882, Thomas McManus submitted the brief in support of Hall in the case labeled In re Hall. He argued that "save sex," there was no other reason why Hall should not be found to be qualified to be admitted to the Bar. Noting that women preached in churches, practiced medicine, taught in the classroom, and acted as executors, guardians, trustees, and overseers, he claimed that the language of the statute regulating attorneys "neither expressly [n]or impliedly exclude[d] women" and that "attorney" was defined as a "person." Opposing counsel was Goodwin Collier, who argued that at the time the statute was enacted, women were excluded from the Bar and the legislature's failure to change the statute indicated its intent to continue to exclude women. On July 19, 1882, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors issued its decision in favor of Hall. Chief Justice John Park wrote for the Court and took the position, contrary to Collier's argument, that if the legislature wanted to exclude women, it would have rewritten the statute to expressly exclude them. Park explained his opinion, stating, "We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as far as possible, in favor of equality of