The New era. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1865-1871, 1865-09-28
The Duties of Supervisors and III
SOccfO9S.

Nc propose 10 submit TO our readers Il
few remarks upon the duties of the con-
duettae officers of elections. It must be
admitted taat crave, if not q perpleX-
inc, responsibility devolves upon them
at Ire October election. They cannot
serve 10th God and Mammon. They
ean44oa, ct the same time obey the Con-
stitatzn CT the State and he Aet Of the
25th Of February, 1855. The two are
iITeeoncilable They must either sup
port Tire Constitution, and disregard the
law-er carry out the law, and trample
unon the Constitution. It is for them
to determine where the path Of duty
lies. and We trust they will matuuely
consider tfsa points involved before they
come 70 any final decision. We Rropose
to submit some views that may aid them
in reaching q satisfactory conclusion.
ore Of the great securities which our
system presents for faithful discharge
OF duty, is the o6icjM oath required of
those who proceed to perform public
function. What is the oath required of
those who conduct an election? It will
be seen, 18th Section, Chap. 100, Acts
of 1868:
eFverv officer and person employed
in holding any election by the people,
sIaII, before entering on the discharge of
h G5.slgs, take the following oath: L
So my swear that I Will support the
Constitution of the United States, and
the Constitution of this State; and that in
the election about to be held, viii faith
f., I'D I5npartialiy discharge my du-
ties, e he best of my skill and judg-
mea4'3i
I5 L obvious that this oath has been
met carefully penned. It was framed
by q body of men whose whole Iegisla-
ten slew that they We're Statesmen;
and not b. such body as the Lesisla
ture Of 1866, which, on one day passed a
law seeking to deprive Of the right OF
sUff.sz=5sse thousands of their feiloW-citi-
zeas; End ca the next day, passed aneth-
er law, admitting theiT oNn Hserpation,
ana aslziHgof the peopieof West Virgin
ia lie authority and power 10 Go, What
tneY had hut the Cay before SO uneon-
stitpsionaIiy attempted to &. It would
be difficult. in all the records OF Legis-
latiVe Inconsistency, to ind more
striking feet.
Why does this law Of 1868 require of
all conductors OF elections TO swear to
suppert the Constitution of the United
States9 Obviously, to have that assur-
sncc of their loyalty. Why does it next
require them to support the CoNsTIru
TIoN of this State? Why did it not en-
Join upon them to support the laws of
the State, or the acts Of the Legislature?
For a iil1e plain and obvious reason
The CONSTITUTION alone can, and does,
define the qualifications of electors. No
law can alter the elective franchise; no
act of Assembly can say who shall, or
who shall not vote. Therefore it was
unnecessary, in the oath, to call upon
the conductors Of the elections to look to
the ordinary legislation of the State
They are required by their oath to look
to the only source of information on that
SUBJECTIVE CONSTITUTION of the State.
In truth, they are -solemnly
forbidden-by their oaths, to respect any
law De1l MY upon tlic GlcCulNo IIdIlCIlloC,
and are imperatively required to look
alone to the CONSTITUTION as the stand
ard by which the right Of every citizen
toVote isto predetermined. Thus required
to took to the Constitution OF the State
as the sole authority for deciding who
shall and shall not vote, they are further
made to swear that they will discharge
that duty under the Constitution faith
fully and impartially Can the duties Of
public officers be more plainly and dis
tinctly traced out for them? If it was
the purpose of the Legislature of 1856:
really tocarry their admittedly unconsti
tutional Law into effect, they should
have repealed the oath under which the
conductors of election now acts-they
should have substituted an oath requir
ing them to disregard the Constitution
and to uphold the action of the Legisla
ture; and they should have saved tn