The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-09-16
DEMOCRATIC TICKET.
For House Of Delegates
JAMES PAUL.,
N. RICHARDSON,
N. 81. GARRISON.
The Test Oath

Intelltqencer, which, as emanating from
the highest law officer of the State, is, to
say the least of it, very remarkable.
He argues that the law is constitutional
and that even if it were in violation of
the provisions of the organic law of this
State, it must be enforced until judicial
~ set aside The manner in which 1.-THE
highest legal officer. of the State" dis
poses of the er post facto character of the
law in question is as follows:
ut is suggested that these two legisla,
tive acts impose penalties for supposed
offences, which may have been commit
ted before their enactment, and are
therefore. er post facto in their operation
aud effect and for this reason unconstitu-
tionan. take it, they impose no pen
atty, they simply prescribe certain disa-
bilities aud conditionally limit or restrict
she right to vote and hold office under
oar constitution and laws"
The idea that the disabilities" imposed
hy the law are not penalties" is deci'
dedly novel We presume that. accord
ing to the Attorney General. execution
for murder is not the infiction of pen.
alty," il is simply disability" of a very
serious character imposed upon the
criminal 1t is declared that in conse-
qnence of certain acts done by the indi-
vidual he shall be deprived Of his pc
iilical rights and yet this disfranchise-
ment is not penalty, it is simply dis
ability. If the law had imposed a pen
ally for all act done before its passage the
Law would be er post facto and nnconsti.
tutional but as it imposes simply disa
billy il is all right and should be- enforc
ed We think We know some persons III
West Virginia to whom deprivation OF
the privilege of holding office woald be
the most grievoua penalty that the Law
could inhiCt
The other positions assumed by the
Attorney General III defense Of the Test
OaIh ale equally novel and will pr"ha-
bis cause no little sensation i'll legal en-
cles i'll this State We confess 10 heiug
gifted with ali ordinary degree If reVer-
ehce for official station, but notWith
standing the fact that Mr. HALLS opinion
is sand 10 rank next in authority TO a de
cisiun II the Supreme Court itself. We
oalm0t say that we are convinced OF the
cunstirntiOnality OF the Test Oath by such
extraordinary reasoning a. the Attorney
General employs
With regard to the enforcement Of the
law whether constitutional OF not va ac-
knowledge to a lingering preference tor
the opinion of Chief Justice MARSHALL
above that of our distinguished Attorney
General. OF of Judge \, HARRISON whose
letter upon this question is quoted ap-
rravingly by Mr.. FALL Presuming that
those gentlemen have never seen the case
of Osborn rs the Bank Of United States de
Cided by the supreme court OF the United
states in 1924 and reported in the ninth
volume of Wheatons Reports, we take
The liberty ofcalling their attention 10 II.
The Legislature of Ohio in 1919, passed
a,i act imposing an annual tax Of $50 900
ni very branch Of the United states
Blnk III the State. The act dueCts the
STAT, Auditor to charge the tax 20 the
3.rk M the 18th of September III each
ar, Id issue variant under the seal
i is office to some person to collect IT.
ne person to whom the warrant was
,,eli, cred was required by the act tn tie
mand payment at the Bank and if IT was
LOT paid, TO levy the amount on The
money and property of the Bank If he
could not find effects enough III the bank
ing room, he was authorized to break
open any loom, vault OF chest III search
Of what would satisfy his warrant.
OSBORN, who was the Auditor, APP
pointed HARPER to collect the tax, who
went to Chillicothe aud seized on 100000
Of specie and bauk notes belonging to
tic Branch at that placs. The money
was delivered to CURRY. who was then
Treasurer Of tho State. and afterwards
came into tbei hands of 6CLLyvAN, his
successor
The Bank sued OSBORN, HARPER and
SULLIVAN individually for the money -
Two Questions, Of course, arose in the
cause: l. Was the act of tho Ohio Leg
islature constitutional , If il was not,
were the auditor, collector, aud ,reasur-
or personally liable for executing IL
The Supreme Court of the United
States held the act ~ be uncoustitution-
al but the other question was consider
ed so clear that tue counsel for tie de
PENDANTS gave it ur, Chief Justice MAR
sBAiI delivered the opinion OF the Court
and iu tue course OF it he stated ,see ?
Wheaton $500 The appellants (OsBoRN
- Coz expressly waive THE EXTRAV.
AaANT PROPOSITION THAT \ VOID
ACT CAN AFFORD PROTECTION TO
THE PERSONS WHO EXECuIE TToI
Apsrsouai decree was entered a.aiust
OSBORN. -!ARpER aud SULLi..X IaI the
money
We seen to have nettei id,iSts IA our