The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-13 00:00:00

Further Decisions of the Supreme Court.

The decision of the Supreme Court on the
" Milligan" case has been followed by another on
the Test Oath, which has reversed the action of the
Missouri State Courts, and sets aside, in the case of
the Rev. Mr. Cummings, a Roman Catholic priest,
the Test Oath as unconstitutional. This gentle-
man was indicted for refusing to take the oath.
The Supreme Court held that the oath was uncon-
stitutional, on the ground that it is ex post facto in
its operation, and equal to punishment without trial
in its nature. In another case, two attorneys who
had been pardoned for the part they had taken
in the rebellion demanded re-admission to practise
in the Supreme Court, but could not take the oath
required by Congress. The latter case raises the
question of the effect of a pardon by the Executive
power. The Court has decided that pardon, what-
ever may be the offence, relieves not only from the
penalty, but restores the offender to the status he
occupied before committing the offence. The
Court has also ruled that attorneys are officers of
the Court, and as such are not subjected to the con-
trol of Congress.

The provisions of the oath, as described by the
Court, are as follow :

" First, that the deponent has never voluntarily
borne arms against the United States since he has
been a citizen thereof ; second, that he has not
voluntarily given aid, countenance, counsel, or en-
couragement to persons engaged in armed hostility
thereto ; third, that he has never sought, accepted,
or attempted to exercise the functions of any office
in
whatsoeverhousntdileitryantoy athuiethouriituyteod States; fourth,r pretended au-
thoritythat he has not yielded a voluntary support to any
pretended Government, authority, Power, or Con-
stitution within the United States hostile or inimical
thereto ; fifth, that he will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same."
The decision of the Supreme Court on these
cases had in effect pronounced this oath to be un-
constitutional, and, therefore, invalid. The unani-
mous opinion of the Court, as to the legal effects of
a pardon, is as follows :
" A pardon reaches both the punishment pre-
scribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender;
and when the pardon is full it releases the punish-
ment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that
in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent
as if he never committed the offence. If granted
before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties
and disabilities consequent upon conviction from
attaching. If granted after conviction, it removes
the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to
all his civil rights. It makes him, as it were, a
new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.
There is only this limitation to its operation—it
does not restore offices forfeited or property or in-
terests vested in others in consequence of the con-
viction and judgment."
The majority of the Court go further, and say :
" llc is thus placed beyond the reach of punish-
ment of any kind. But to exclude him by reason
of that offence from continuing in the enjoy-
ment of a previously acquired right is to enforce
a punishment for that offence, notwithstanding
the pardon. If such exclusion can be effected by
the execution of to oath, covering
an expurga story
the offence, the pardon may be avoided, and that
accomplished indirectly which cannot be reached by
direct legislation. It is not within the constitu-
tional power of Congress thus to inflict punishment
beyond the reach of Executive clemency.
They also rule that
the pardoning power of the
PRESIDENT cannot be restrained by Congress :
" The Constitution provides that the President
shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons for
offences against the United States except in cases of
impeachment. With the exception stated, it ex-
tends to every offence known to the law, and may
be exercised at any time after its commission, either
before legal proceedings are taken, or during their
pendency, or after conviction and judgment. This
power of the President is not subject to legislative
control. Congress can neither limit the effect of
his pardon, nor exclude from its exercise any class
of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy re-
posed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative
restriction."

The minority of the Court dissent from these
opinions, contending that Congress has the power
to proscribe an oath to be taken by all persons ad-
mitted to office, and that the Test Oath cannot be
properly considered in the nature of an cx post facto
law. The Judges who delivered an opinion were
Mr. Justice FIELD, Judges DAVIS, CLIFFORD, NEL-
SON, and GRIER. These formed the majority, the
minority being Chief Justice CHASE, and Judges
MILLER, SWAYNE, and WAYNE. Two of the for-
mer were appointed by President LINCOLN. That
PRESIDENT also appointed three of the latter, and
one was made by General JACKSON. The decision
is of the greatest importance, and is exciting a lively
feeling of interest throughout the country. limit;