Thomas E. Scott was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude on February 22, 1935, and disbarred from the practice of law. Some time during the year 1945 he filed his application in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, seeking reinstatement. The material allegations of the petition as amended were that the petitioner is of good moral character and integrity and possesses the requisite qualifications and professional fitness required of an attorney at law under the laws of the State. Attached to the petition for reinstatement was the petition of more than one hundred attorneys, who, it is alleged, constitute more than two-thirds of the attorneys of the county and who generally practice in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. Also attached to the petition was a full pardon under the great seal of the State, pardoning the applicant of the crime of which he had been convicted, and numerous letters from various other attorneys together with letters from thirteen members of the Bench recommending that Mr. Scott be reinstated. The petition prayed that the order of March 18, 1938, removing him from the rolls be set aside and that he be reinstated. After the introduction of the oral and documentary evidence and argument by counsel, the court entered the following order and judgment: ""The applicant having petitioned the court for restoration as a practicing attorney, and the court on two former occasions having denied the petition because the law made no provision for restoring an attorney, who had been disbarred because of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, it is still the opinion of the court, that, in the absence of legislative action, the court is without authority to order such restoration. Therefore, said petition for restoration is denied. While the court has denied the petition for restoration because in the opinion of the court there is no authority under the law in a case of this kind for the court to authorize restoration, the court, not only in a spirit of Christian forgiveness, but in the true sense of Justice, can not overlook the fact that the applicant practiced law for many years without a blemish on his character or professional standards before he was involved in the alleged crime, nor is the court unmindful of the long period of time he has been deprived of the right to practice law because of said alleged offense, and the large number of letters from the most reputable attorneys that he be restored. The applicant has been punished and punished severely for his alleged misdeeds, and the court, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, and the further fact that the applicant is now sixty-eight years of age -- almost at the three-score-and-ten -- regrets that it is not within the power of the court to say that the applicant, has from all evidence available, redeemed himself."" The petitioner excepted to this judgment and brings the case here for review.