The Portland daily press., 1865-12-06
Official Test Oaths.

The Democratic papers, or thore that arc
anv;ous for rebels to be restored to power, in
sist upon the unconstitutional character VI
the oath required of all officers under the fed
eraI government. BY an act Of Congress no
ono can enter upon the duties of such an Of
flee. without first taking prescribed oath, to
the effect that he has never voluntarily borne
arms against the United States since he has
been citizen thereof, that he has in no way
aided or supported the rebellion, that he has
held no Office under any power within the
Union set up in contravention of the consti-
tuition, thus cutting off effectually all who
have voluntarily participated in the rebellion,
in any way lent it their confidence, or paid their
money to uphold it.
1t is urged that Congress has no right to inn
pose such an oath, and particularly upon men,
bers of its own Houses. Because the consti-
tuition says that "Senators and Representa-
tives shall be bound by an oath or affirmation
to support the Constitution" it is argued that
all requisition in the form of test oaths, be-
yond this is without authority, and contrary
to the constitution.
Referring to the oath required of members,
the Advertiser of this city recently said:
Now all this solemnity of renewed allegiance may
be very proper in the abstract. But who has con-
stGuional right to impose such an OATH as q cond-
tion of membership of Congress? Certainly the
Constitutio OF the United States prescribes such
oath as condtion-and certain 1t is, that instru-
ment confers no power upon Congress to add to the
conditions qualifications oil such membership. 1t
iswboly an extra-judicIal oath if imposed, and can
be imposed only by an arbitrary assumption Of
power.
This is the argument-the whole of it
against the official test oath. 1t is to be
borne in mind that the Constitution only
states one thing in relation to which the
members of Congress shall swear or affirm,
that is, that they will support the Constitution
There is nothing, however, in the constitution,
which specifically bars Congress against pre-
scribing additional oath or affirmation, and
those who say the existing test oath is oppos-
ed to the Constitution support their declara-
ton by negative arguments only drawn from
the silence ofthat fundamental law 4; from what
it does not say.
Nowit happens that the Constitution, in
express terms, provides that each House shall
be 'the judge of the elections, returns and
qualifications of its own members" and it
would seem as though this alone gave author
ity to impose an oath, the Houses wisely con-
sidering that any man who is not qualified to
take it; who for treason or other similar reas-
on cannot safely subscribe to it, is not "quali-
fed" for seat in the highest legislative tribu-
nal known to our laws. This is common
sense view, and in the absence ofall other con-
siderations would seem to settle the matter on
the side of the authority and validity of the
oath now required OF members.
But, fortunately, the matter does not rest on
mere common-sense interpretation. 1t has
auth0rity-no less authority than that Of Chief
Justice Marshall. This distinguished jurist
has settled the whole thing in language too
plain and free from ambiguity TO be easily set
aside We invite the attention of those gen.
tlemen who have been misled by Democratic
reasoning and protests against the official test
Oath and who have been disposed to take the
view of the Adoertiser,-that it is extra,judi-
cial and in coutravention of the Constitution,
to the following extract from the learned
jurist alluded to: e-r-f fIE}g8
carriedinto execution without prescribing oath Of
office. The power to exact this security for the faith
full performance OF duty is not given, nor is ii inds
pensably necessary. The different departments may
be establshed taxes may be imposed and collected;
armies and snavies may be raised and maintained;
and money may be borrowed without requiring an
oath OF office. It might be argued, with much
plausibility other incidental powers have been
sailed, that the convention not unmndiul of this
subject. The oath which might be exaeted-that OF
fidelity to the Constitutions prescribed, and no
other can be required But he would be- CHARGED
with insanity who should contend that the Iegisa-
ture might not supera Id to the oath directed by the
Constitution such other oath Of Office as its wisdom
might suggest" 4 Wheaton 416.