The weekly union record., 1864-03-19
Opinion of District Attorney on tn,
Lawyers Test Oath"

The Grand Jury having submitted to me the
attorneys oath taken by the attorneys of this
bar, find that all the attorneys now practicing
at this bar have taken the oath required by the
Act of 1868, except L.C. Granger and j. f. \
Lewis.
The constitutionality of this Act having been
lately sustained by the Supreme Court in the
case of er Parte Gregory Y ale, it would be un-
becoming in me or this Grand Jury 10 question
the binding force OF said law. 1t only remains,
then, to consider whether the attorneys named
have taken the oath required BY said Act.
The oath of l.. c. Granger submitted to me
by this Grand Jury, commences as follows: Il,
L. c. Granger, Oh attorney duly licensed, etc,
etc, thus giving short history of his life and
present status, not required in the prescribed
oath, but this cannot effect the validity of the
the oath, as it does not in any manner change
the meaning thereof: but he makes numerous
qualifications which do change the meaning OF
said oath. The Legislature require the oath to
be taken without qualification or mental reser-
yation, while the oath of said Graugsr has such
qualification that Jefferson Davis or any Of his
followers might take the same oath without
doing the least violence to their consciences. In
the very beginning Of said oath occurs the fol
lowing language: "Disclaiming all intent to
support the Federal Government in any aggres-
sion upon the sovereign rights of the States" +"
This is such u qualification as to Ytiate the
whole oath. If the Federal Government under
takes to collect revenue in the State, be could
resist the same, and with john c. Calhoun say
"the Government has no right TO collect tariff,
and the attempt to do so is al aggression upon
the sovereignty of the States - or, if the Gov
tn br ba
might resist the same on the same ground as
has been done in some of the Eastern States
There is another objection to said oath. The
law 10 question requires all attorneys 10 swear
that they will bear true faith and allegiance to
the Government Of the United States AL
civilized governments require such oaths from
their citizens, and their right 10 do so has
been questioned by any one, and any person
who enjoys the privileges Of citizen should be
willing to take such an oath but even this
requirement of the law is taken with quaif-
cation, namely: "n all constitutional acts
tionality of the acts of faith and allegiance
required of him.
/ now come to the oath of J. E. n Lewis
Said oath follows the law except the last clause,
and therein adds the following qualification
Unless the interpretation hereinafter gwen Is
qualification or mental reservation of the duties
and allegations imposed by the same, and this
affant gives and grants to the foregoing the
construction, and contends that the same is the
true legal meaning and construction of the form
of the oaths imposed by said Act" And then
follows an Interpretation of said oath which il
many instances is the very reverse of the mean
ing of the oath required by said law, and con-
tains many of the doctrines held by those in
rebellion against the Government.
am therefore of opinion that L. c. Granger
and j. E. n. Lewis, practciug attorneys at
thi, bar, have not taken the oath required by
law. The taking of an oath TO support JEFF.
Davis or Napoleon would come as near com
pliance with the law as the oaths submitted TO
me- S. ROSENBAUM,
District Attorney of Butte county.