The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-12-09

G'tuStS SAtut. ottAbkS Nfllnlu Ina meaning
OIL our Constitution IO1' a year after be-
ing so restored. q Until they took the
amnesty oath in good faith and kept It,
they we're "public enemies, - whom our
Legislature expressly declared to be
non-residents, and authorised their
property to be proce He'd ngainst as such;
and the lawyers who are now SO conf
dent their rights and. residency have
never ceased, or BEEN ninterrnptedys yserVe,
out processes upon their property upon
this very ground, and onr Judges, in
Guiding Judge LOOMS, sustained the
~ The next question is, does the test
oath as called require any oG5eT or
further quail 5fcdtion of the person offer,
ing to vote than our Constitution re-
quiresf If it does then admit, it isito
that extPntuncOnSt5tptio tionaE But fon
the eontfaryS II Is only mode or5nedHS
on enabling the Supervisors and Inspec.
tors to ascertain whether the person, in
case he shan be challenged, has the
qualifications required by the Consti-
tuition, then it is clearly within the dis
erection of the Legislature TO prescribe,
iand therefore constttu tiSnal. This fsthe
language of the oath - .I'.,,l, g,',7ji.i A.
81, ALB, (name ofaffiantl do solemn
~ swear that1 have never U0LLE1JtdBIiiy
borne arms against the United States,
the rerorganized Government OF Vfr-
giniR, or the State Of West Virginia /:
that have never 0t.tE,tITiky given, aid,
eom1fort or assistance to PERSONS engaged
in armed hostility against the Uniied
States, the re-organized Government of
Virginia, or the State of West Virginia,
thai have not at any time sought, dc-
copied, exercised OF attempted to e.rerctse
any office or appointment whatever un-i
.EdeF any authority or pretended author
NY hostile or ,inimical to the United
States, the re-organized Government of
nj kIRoGk yknks
that have not at any time yielded a
ToEHHtdIy support to any government
pretended government, power or
constitution! !tIithfR the United States,
hostile or inimical thereto, or hostile or
inimiciIl to the re-organfzed Govern
ment Of Virginia; or the State of
west Virginia that 4 will support
the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State of
West Virginia; and that take this
oath freely, without any mental reser-
vation or purpose of evasion.Y ~ l7.., I.
Now, Isuhmit that there was no per-
son in West Virginia who had commit
ted any OF the acts enumerated in, this
oath Except taking OF the oath of allie
glance mentioned at the ctosel prior to
February 26th, 1865, that had at that
date the qualifications to vote that were
required by our Constitution. Both the
Language, and the spirit of the oath re-
enumerated, should have been COM
mitted within the limits and when citi-
lzens of the United States, Each of the
acts enumerated would be clearly oUeTt
acts Of treason against the United States,
for if aimed at the re-organized Govern
pment or Government of West Virginia,
the clear legal inference is, they were
.done in furtherance of the gigantic re-
bellion and conspiracy, which aimed at
the overthrow OF the United States Gov
eTnment. Every person therefore that
had committed any of these acts, had
thereby made himselfa a "public .enemy''
and as such, had forfeited at least his
political rights under the United States,
and SO far lost or impaired his citizell-
SiaP-9f Stlto- GsEtted States as to be unable
to I'LL tho call of our State Constitution,
which is fora 1UhoLe, perfect citizen of the
Cnited States, and not such shorn and
Skeleton objectaS his treason shall have
rendered him.
Is there anything in the mode or form
that can render this act unconstitu-
ttonalH There is always strong legal
presumption in favor of the;Gonstitu-
tionality of law, passed as it Is, by the
Legislature, and coordinate branch of
the government, which is supposed to
be composed of the best character and
talent of the State, and under solemn
oath to etandr support the eOnsti-
tuition, and mott at tempt q violation of it
by its legislation. At the ecomfnencement
of the Government the first legal intel
lects doubted if it was competent for the
courts to declare n law unconstitutional
which the legislative branch, upon their
oathS, had pronounced to be constitu-
tional, and deliberated if the question
ought not to be submitted to the people
who are the source of all power But
finally the Supreme Court Of the United
States, with Chief Justice Marshall at
eNal.N N.Tn.1r IL
decided itlwOuld be competent in cases
where the law was AlGnifeStLy against
the constitution, but IN no other cases.
So great and grave question was not
then hippantly disposed of as by the
copperhead or invested lawyers, and
some sSn judges 9f @ @oPt interior courts at
The constitution presCrihes no pdrtic1t-
tt1' mode in which thejudges at elections
shall ascertain the qualifications Of per-
sons offering to vote, but leaves this
part wholly to the discretion of the
Legislature, as the constitutions of the
mother State has ever done. Our first
Legislature in the act prescribing the
mode of holding elections by the peo-
pie, passed November 18th, '69, section
q, of that act provides as follows: 'tThe
supervisor Or either of the inspectors is
hereby authorized to administer said
oath, . (that is the oath OF allegiance, ]
t'0Ild also 70 sIgedr any person to dlISiCeT
QlteSttohS respecting any right to UOte
which IS eEGiRIed." 9AS broad an author
ity has been exercised by the, superin-
tendents of elections in the mother State
since her foundation without objections.
/ Under these REtsIt. has uniformly been
held competent for the experimenting
officers to swear any person Offering to
interrogate him to any. length deemed
necessary, touching his Qualifications
| ''or any right to vote, WIS the Language
| of the statute is,l his citizenship, resi-
dence, age, &c. Now suppose the Leg
! islature had prescribed a set of tques-
| tions, pertinent to the various elements
| of qualification, which constitute his
fright to vote, or had prescribed the form
! of an affidavit which embraced all the
prerequisite qualifications, as citizen
ship, residence, age, &c, or anyone Of
them, and required the persons offering
/ to vote, If challenged, to subscribe and
make oath to the same, which could be
| filed away and preserved. Either OF
these modes of dseertdninq would cer-
tainly be within the power OF. the LAGis-
lattlre to prescribe, and therefore con-
stitutiona1. Is what is termed the "test
oath" any more than such an affidavit
| framed by the Legislature for the pur-
pose of GseertdiniIlg the Prerequisite
tqudtLfcudons OF, citiSelShiR IN a time Of
eitiI iCdT', schieh her citizens iCefe ddlS
JoTyeitiHg by committing acts of treason,
and tcheli odthS uere broken as soon as
tctss7t-in a JorIR to be. He'd aid PFesEated
I as evidence against the person taking Il :
These are the views aimed to give in
my former letter before the election,
though l had not time then to fully
elaborate and explain them.
4 The article in the Gdzette has served
\ to revive the subject, and the Judges
Instructions have showna peculiar pfiu-
| biLitN. though Union man. NO less fhnn