The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-10-02

i page AZ - requires tue ptlSOh 'OuSiinS "
vote to swear, if challenged, that he aerer
committed any of the acts therein enum-
| Grated There are doubtless, many per-
sons in the State who, prior to the act OF
| 1863. gave aid and comfort TO the rebel-
lion in some of the methods prescribed
| In that act, but who, previous to its pas
SAGE. had returned to their allegiance
and become peaceable and law abiding
citizens. Now, these persons, II other
wise qualified, would clearly have the
right, under the Constitution, to v1tc,
and yet they could not take the oath
prescribed by the act of 1865. And then,
again, it may be that many persons eN-
patriated by the act of 1863, have return
ed to their allegiance and rega'ned their
citizenship, and if SO, they wodld be en-
titled, under the Constitution, to vote,
but could not do SO if challenged, be-
cause they could not take the prescribed
oath. For this reason | am free to say
that the oath in question is entirely too
broad in its terms, and that it requires
the person offering to vote, if challenged,
TO swear to more than is authorized by
the Constitution. Had the oath been so
framed as to carry out the object and in
tention of the Legislature, its enforce.
ment would have been no violation OF
the Constitution: but. unfortunately, this
is not the case, and !, the efore, recon-
mend to my Union friends everywhere
that we treat the law requiring this oath,
as dead letter, and not seek to enforce
it upon any one. five expect others to
live up to their constitutional Obligations,
we must not violate the Constitution our
selves. The election law of 1868 confers
upon the supervisors and inspectors OF
election full power To reject the ballots
of all persons not entitled to vote, (see
laws of 1868, sections 2i and %, on page
119)
Under this Jaw, it will he seen, they
have the right "to swear any person to
answer questions respecting any right to
vote which is claimed, and in this way
they can accomplish all that was intend
ed to he accomplished by the law of 1865.
In concluding upon this subject. tie
sire 10 say that | was not, as is err"ne'
ously supposed, the originator oi the law
in question The original bill requiring
the imposition of this oath, was House
Bill No. 2O," introduced by Mr. Fleming
of Harrison county, (see House Journal,
page 49, but | voted for and supported
it, and am as responsible for its passage,
in one sense, as if had originated it. My
only object in referring 20 the matter at
all, is tn cXCuse myself. to some extent,
for not having looked more carefullvinto
the matter before voting for the bill |
would NOT have introduced So grave a
measure without having examined II III
all It's bearings. but having the matter
first brought to my attention by gen
tlcman ot age and experience, and being
so pressed with other business at the
time, | did not bestow upon the subject
the consideration its Importance de-
manded Had have done SO, would
have discovered them, as now, that the
oath required by the act was not only
unconstitutional, but unnecessary to ac-
complisb the object we had i'll view. In
regard to the proposed constitutional
amendment l have but little to say. The
arguments against the cOnstitutionallt
of the measure are not, in my opinion,
worthy OF the slightest consideration,
but it is matter for great consideration,
whether or not it is good policy, now
that the war is over, to insist upon the
amendment in its present form. AS 1t
now stands it DISTINGUISHES all persons,
for all time, who, since the lst day of
June, 1861, have given voluntary aid to
the rebellion. The high and the low, the
intelligent and the ignorant, the leaders
and the led, are alike, forever stricken
down by it saving only, such as have
volunteered into the military OF naval
service of the United States, and have
been or shall be honorably discharged
theretrom This measure was introduced
into the Senate by Mr.. Maxwell, of
Harrison county, the ablest lawyer in
that body, and was passed, as we all
know, at time when the war was still
waging, and when none ofus supposed II
would have such an abrupt termination.
1t was believed by the members of the
Legislature that while one portion of the
inhabitants of the State were trying to
des' 10Y the government by the use of the
bullet, it was not right to allow those
a'no were aiding ard abetting them at
homc, to assist them therein by the use
of the ballot If the war had continued
until the submission of this amendment
to the people for ratification, it might
have been proper to submit it in its pres
cnt shape; but now that the war has so
suddenly, and so happily terminated, if
the proposition be adhered to at all, it
ought | think, to be changed so as to fix
some period at which disfranchiscmsnt
should cease. and the number of persons
excepted from its operation should he
decreased
But in my opinion, the better way of
settling this and all other questions
growing ont of the war, would be, for
the next Legislature to pass a law, sub
mitting to the people the question of
calling convention TO form new Con-
stitution, in which every portion Of the
State could now be represented. There
are so many defects in our present Con-
stitution, that it will be absolutely neces-
sary to call such a convention a short
time hence; and this being the case,
there can be no time so appropriate as the
present In addition TO the question
growing out of the rebellion, it is well
known that Mr. Lamb, who is now pre-
pairing new code of laws for the State,
will make his report to the next session
of the Legislature, and an adjourned
session will have to be held, some time in
the summer or fall of 1866, to act upon
that report A new constitutional con-
vention, when called, will, unquestiona-
bly,, make a great many important
changes in our Constitution, aud our new
code, when adopted by the Legislature,
ought to conform to those changes in
stead of being based upon the present
Al