Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1827-01-25

House was prepared TO sama its iura.
lpacity to expsl member who had rem.
dered himself infamous?-ye this WAS
consequence Of the argume ut of Gen.
Taylor. II might be said that this wa.
a personal disqualification, but f the
House could affix il to one rerson. II
could to another. He conceded the
monstrous results appreheDded by the
gentleman from Norfolk exclusion fov
drunkenness, card playing or other
vice, appertsining 10 this authority. vet
there was no constitutional restriction
upon the power of the Legislature. Mr
Z. cited various passages OF the Const-
tuition. as susceptible OF construction.
nay, the obvious construction of which
was opposed TO the practice of the Go.
vernment under them, whence be de-
rived an argument in favor OF the power
of the Legislature to superadd qnalifica.
ton to members, as conformable 10 the
practic under the Constitution.-But i.
there any thing in this particular sta,att
which renders ii uncon stitutioaaI9 Ges~
tlemen will answer 10 the affirmative ana
object to the oath. There is nothing in
the Constitution authorsing an oath at
all, and are the oaths OF fidelity and adj
Duration UNCONSTITUTIONAL are they also,
test oaths and When O.
man refuses to take the oath which IS
made by law, necessary TO the entrance
into office, and therefore cannot enter
on the office to which the oath is a pre-
and there is an end of il
There is no question asked, no prosecu-
tioD to follow his refusing the oath, and
no punishment TO follow unless the ex-
clusion from Office be so considered.
But sir, the gentleman from Norfolk
applied these words to the ger tleman
from Charles City, that he would have
been lawless man if he had teken this
oath, and certainly the sentiments ex-
pressed by the gentleman from Norfolk,
that this is usurpation, he himself
would have been justified for not ta-
king. And would be therefore have
been deemed dusllisti Sir, the prin-
ciple OF the common law is. that no
man shall be twice punished for the
same offence II this be punishment
for duelling then it might be pleaded
in bar to prosecution for violation Of
the law Now ask gentlemen would
such plea be receiyeds-- But it is no
punishment, ifso every other disqualif.
cation is punishment. for cannot adj
nit the distinction between a disqualiG-
ton for crime and civil Disqualification,
as the gentleman called them. This is
an exclusion from office, but no pun
sbment; that is only excluded from of-
fice and operates no further. but it is
Sir do not understand
the distinction. But if exclusion from
office be a punishment then have all
hose disqualified from voting, been la-
bouring under punishment from the
foundation of our government to this
lay. Then are inspectors of tobacco
punished and your deputy sherifs toe
are punished; for WHAT for executing
your laws And il it be a punishment,
hen are you inflcting punishment on
United States officers; for what? for
an office under the general
Then your law is uncon-
for If YOU have a right to
mpose one punishment YOU have right
o impose other and severer punishments
Until you prevent any one from accept
ng an office under that government. and
hus prevent the lawful operations Of
hat government
Mr.. Watkins of Prince Edward,
chairman of the Committee of prvile-
.es and Elections, followed Mr.. Colston
md in support of the resolution OF the
Combining himself to the
question. he attacked the
nconstitutionallty of the test cath and
he superaddition of qualification, with
orce.
MrMAsoN Of Fairfax. succeeded Mr..
Watkins on the same side, ard denoun-
ed the duelling act as a bantling OF
and the of1eringof violence
N the Constitution.
He presented new ground Of object
ion to the constltutionality of the law,
n furnishing an offence committed with
,ut the limits of the State. He centen-
led that where there was no jurisdiction
here was no right 10 inflict punishment
t had been said that State being res
,onsibe for the actions of its citizens.
vas entitled to a controul over their
onduct. He denied the doctrine, as
0 ally without the support of authority,