Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1864-02-05

ator and you wish 10 ascertain In the eAsest and tbe
most convenient way could whether he had the quail
hoauous mentioned in the Constitution would there
be anything at all improper In the SenAtos making
rule that each person presenting himself TO be
asa Senator should take oath 10 whether he
was thirty years Of age whether he citizen Of the
United states for nine whether he resided In the
state that chose him Senator II they thought that
the easiest, the most quiet and convenient practical
method Of getting At the question Of his qualifications
dsqualhcaons, could not the Senate direct its Prcs-
dent 10 ask him. Are you thirty years old D. II might
not do for him to that he not because then he
would not be entitled 70 the but would there be
anything improper in asking him the question Is the
form Of the question varied II you ask him about dis
quAheaton instead Of asking hun about qualification
Suppose this law which fkaye read was the only law
upon the subject would 1t have been competent and
proper for the Senate at time 10 say elect
ed ater its passage. " Sir wish 10 enquire OF YOU
whether you have this qualifications Why not? Why
not ask him about that about any ether quAlih-
cation or disqualification, II tits disqualification
ed BY constitutional law cannot the difference
think the Senate could adopt the very rule pro-
posed by the Senator from Massachusetts this had
never been passeia rule that they direct to be put
their members the very form Of oath prescribed In the
law u ASCERTAIN whether the party had been guilty Of
treason. see no reason Why 1t could not have been
done whether there statute for It not. grant
ho"e'er mat n IL more convenient way to have the
rule made under the form Of law in the first place
merely to enable you 70 address yourselves to the mans
conscience IN the sight Of God under the sanctions Of
ligous belief but also do t under the sanctions Of
law andh Is made for all requiring any charges TO
be filed, not requing any nvdiOus distinctions 70 be
made but offering It TO ali who present themselves Be
sides, when i' has the sanction oflaw breach Of the
oath becvmes PERJURY where's III mere prescrb
ed by rule breach Of il would not be perjury.
Now sir, what is the character n the law rsqur-
ing this oath II is nothing bot mode practically to
aid the body in carrying into effect this previously
ing declaration In relation TO disqualification, not Great
ing disqualification. Suppose law Is made such ia
common ia our States, that man guilty Of murder shall
suffer deaths ard II may be that other crimes also
punished In the same mannf Another separate statute
is made which directs how - in what manner the prop
e. officer shall eHseatedhnpi- sis, whether by hanging
Ia Nha frH he No
.han done by The otef IN has the warrant to exrcute
Would do to say that because that statute directed the
sheriff TO execute the man who had been convicted "
murder by hanging therefore That law defined the crime
or created the punishment for murder Not at all u
only directed the manner ofits execution. That would
be the shefihs warrant for the mode Of execution but
the law which defined the crime and created the punish
ment was an entirely different statute SO it is in this
This naturally brings to consider Of the OBJ
jectons which the honorable Senator makes this last
law but i will be borne 10 nd that hc all the while
makes all his argument against that law and treats Il as II
1t were the onJ law the subject. What he would say
TO this law which have produce dread and presented
TO him and how many Of the objections he makes 20 the
other Law he would consider applicable 20 this do not
know. cannot say It presents entirely different
case and II removes large part Of the objections which
he honorable Senator makes 10 the law prescribing
oath will call ateui ion to some few ofhc points
Of objection which he makes to that statute and tnns
II will be apparent that whenever you look at those OBJ
eoons 1t wi be found thai, In the view in which have
presented the subject taking together all the laws made
A. that time on the suectmater, many OF them
Htl1 ItHluNtuf VIII LOW alttuu 10 ntfttal VI
seriatiBi.
One objection to this oath that it is in the nature Of
test oath, and that may be extended to require
man 10 eNpurRate himself from all crimes. Ii says.
in effect that this precedent for any future Congress
to make law by which they require man to take
oath hat he has never bcu guilt, Of larceny Auy
other crime. sir, It is obnoxious that Obccd N.
1t only requires man 10 take oath In relation to
crime which by law creates Disqualification. Larceny
would not disqrahy man from taking seat in the
Senate. Why not Because we have stature u the
United Statesand certainly State laws have ei-
feet upon (which makes that disqualification for
holding office This statute is nothing but precedent
for requiring oath in relation To tNt which is die,
qualification. no more. II is, therefore, not obnoxious
TO that Objection, and cannot DC precedent for such
course = the Senator supposos.
But the Senator says Congress might under this prcce
dent a. on u pass law On the subject ftempeiAnce
and might even require that he had
er paaken Of wine any other ntoXi allng fluid lie
does not think they would be likely do that, because 1t
would break up Contest but he says they misht At
any rate make linn promise that he never would use
such articles cannot see how seriously and candidly
ihis law Is precedent Tor that You vii observe III
that would be asking Of man TO make oath in fela
lion 70 his future conduct The honorable Senator from
Delaware expressly that there is nothing ia this
in relation to the promise Of what he s de- the pres
ent aud the future 20 which he has any objection ia
world unless it may To the phtasevloy in which it is
rouched lie thinks he could aineud tue phraseOlogy
be thinks 1t is not IN very good taste but The substance
d It he has no objection to IN the would Very well,
then, this is not oath which furnishes precedent for
saying that you may make man promiss and swear as
to his future conduct Ia regard o. any eXcepuonabe mat
er in relation T. that which would be otherwise II you
This aa doe. n1t iequiSe man % take an oath thai
he will not do hereafter an5taug that Is lawful 1t
Dnly requires him that he will be faithful and
bear true allegiance 10 the country. That, the Senator
say is right that he has no obi elton In order To
be precedent ~ anything that is wrong 81 that kind
be should show that this Jaw requires 10 axe
path that be will not do something which entir IL law
l and right II is no such precedent Il is not obuoX
ous TO such remark. The Senstor thinks that unoer
precedent Of this Kind Congress might make oath
luiring mau to that he member Of !
me know Nothngs, never was member n the order Of
Odd We lows, ncyot pfacced medicine, thing else,
however lawful or however indifferent Sir, sa there
Is nothing in it that be precedent ~ such re
luisilion The portion Of the oath which the senator
considers Objectionable contains hing but what relates
10 he disability created by the other law viii have
read
to the Constitution. The winding up and
The substance Of that amendm Mt is that person shall
be deprived Of life liberty or property without due pro-
cess OF law meaning without trlat aud conviction Nov
a. k, does this law deprive Of life, liberty prop
ery 1t tells the State. " You must send traitors
here they entitled hold In the Senate
and It says to such men, You had betterrot here
you canh't occupy place ia the Senate"
But the gentleman saJ mrthr this is post factO
law. You require OF the to that he has
borne arms against the Government Sc that is say,
you require HIM to say not only that he has not bofne
act which have read, but $40 previous me That
would 20 back Of the act which and by which, say,
the disqualification exists desire TO speak Of this
gument with all eandor and fairness. II to-day there
statute law which makes the punishment Of larceny
four yeaTs imprisonment, and man commits larceny
under IT, and the next day Afterwards nd before he is
convicted. law is passed that the punishment TO- lar
eeny shall be years imprisonment. he is tried
which Of those sentences is TO be passed upon him.
one that force when he committed the ofense the
four years. the two years Clearly the years and
that only and IL Is for him say That sentence
OF two years post tdc0, after had committed The
larceny. As it Ia the most favorable, it is the inid
est, he should not complain Off
Es post tacto laws which create that crime
which before, which operate acts pre-
yously committed, increase the punishment; but
here you diminish the punishment. Now, sir, let US
take a under the Senator'S argument. A man
here under this law this disqualification, and the
question arises. lie at once tells as, You must not
ask me about this you proposed under that law
which You carrying into effect because that law
Assed after Of the acts which you asking
about had been committed Now Nhat is that put into
plain English II is simply this: the Law formerly
that should be disqualified by being hung for
thing that did now you are going 70 disquay me I'M
out HANGING aud that is post Jacto, unconsuu-
tional, p" That's all there is OF that
come, now, Mr. President, to another part Of the
Ma @A Ss upon the Y law of
the oath at all lie says Ni innot change the quaR-
agrees entirely with the doeune that you dsqualfy
by way Of punishment Of crime. He grants that
you by law disquaify man for crime and yet
though he grants that and produces the authority he al
the time says cannot add to the qualifications
Congress do anything State Legislature do in
relation 10 any hing concerning their state government
and yet after ALL the Senator insists upon II that we
not change the qualification disqualification Of mem
Der Of the Senate and that brings him to another point
lie that the must be convicted the Cunsttu-
ton requires that he shall be convicted before he Tiers
ything Sir the law are now trying TO exeoue by
"a l.