Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1865-04-20
GALLIPoLIs APRIL IL, 1865.

R. L. STEWART Esq:-SIR.-I have
read in your paper of the 18th inst,
a report of some remarks of mine as
the writer says at Cabell circuit Court
at its last term in Guyandotte; 1t is
copied as l understand from some
paper published at Point Pleasant.
/ had heard of this article before, but
never saw it till now, nor should ]
now have deemed it of sufficient i'm
pOrtance to call for any notice from
me, if ! had not seen it copied into
your paper.
The report is utterly false so far
as by italics it purports to give my
words; it Is not even a respectable
caricature of what / said. / was
arguing the constitutionality Of an
act of the West Va, Legislature
passed at its last session; which act
undertook to take away from parties
who had been in the rebellion all
right to defend an action unjustly
prosecuted against them.
The case under consideration was
one against DR.. Jenkins In his alb
sceRce, an attachment ~zo1 ss4o,,
out against and judgment rendered
for injuries with which he had had
nothing to do The statute in fore e
when the judgement was rendered
provided, that if he appeared ope My
in the State within five years, he
could on motion have the judgment
set aside and be permitted to defe nd
the action. DR.. jenkins returned
home under the amnesty proclama
ton of the President, and took the
oath required in that proclamation
and hence received the Presidents
pardon for whatever agency he
might have had in this rebellion; DR..
Jenkens, however, denied that he
had ever been in arms against the
government. When the petition was
filed to set aside this judgment thus
obtained in his absence so that he
might be let in to defend the same and
show that he was not liable to the
plaintiff. he was met with this new
law, which required him to make
oath that he had never taken any
part in the rebellion, had not advised,
counselled or aided any one engaged
in it. and had done no act against the
Wheeling Legislature and the new
State of West Virginia.
] claimed that this act was uneon-
stitutional on two grounds; it sought
to change the character of this judg-
ment from what it was when rem
dered. The law then declared that
on simply appearing openly in
the State, he might have the judg-
ment vacated and be let in to defend
the action. This law sought to attach
another condition that of making this
oath, otherwise an unjust judgment
should be suffered to stand against
him and and in favor of men, who
had against truth and law obtained
it, as 1 claimed. 2. 1 claimed by
coming in and taking the oath under
the Presidents proclamation, he was
restored to all his rights of an Ameri
can citizen; that pardon has legally
this effect no laicyer will dispute.
Hence / claimed that the State of
West Virginia could not annul the
effect of this pardon. If West Vir-
ginia could, then Ohio and every
State could and thus defeat the policy
of the President and Congress in
weakening the rebellion by holding
out lenient conditions to those, who
should abandon the rebel cause. /
claimed that on this question of the
pardon ofrebels, the government of
the United States was paramount,
and its action final and conclusive.
But it was said that these men
had been guilty OF treason towards
West Virginin. ] said it was ex-
tremely doubtful, whether there
could be treason against a State,
since the constitution of the Uuited
States gave Congress the power to
declare the punishment for treason
and declared what should be the
effect of conviction; but be this as
it may, the present war and rebellion
was not against any State, but against
the United States; that the men en-
gage,i in it were no more guilty of
treason against West Virginia than
against Ohio or any other State; but;