The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-12-23
Reverdy Johnson's Argument against
the Censtitrtionality Of ,he Gongres.
sional Test Oath. HN
8G ~ WASHINGTON, Dec. 22.4

practise as a counsellor, Hon Reverdy
johnson delivered an argument against
the constitutionality of the congressional
test oath There being no antecedent
government to our own it is necessary to
look into the constitution itself, to see
what powers were originally conferred
upon Congress. These being stated, Con
gress is authorized to pass all neces-
sary and proper laws to carry them
into effect. These powers are to be Sc
construed as to effect the object they
designed to accomplish. 1t it is the du-
ty of this court to ascertain what this is
and then determine whether the legisla-
tion will defeat or secure the end re-
striction to this class of powers is that
Congress should pass no eK post facto
law or bill of attainder; the meaning OF
this is we'll understood to be above any
law which makes an act crime which
was not a crime when the crime was
committed The law Furnishes because it
precludes the petitioner from the exer-
else of lawful occupation, and strikes
at profession in which his hopes, ambi-
ton and the support of himself and
family are involved The punishment is
severe, cruel and unexampled 1t sub
iects him to all the objections OF the
Constitution while it takes from him all
the advantages. The original act of 1862
was not made applicable to attorneys in
the courts of the United States Three
years were suffered to elapse when per
sons in Congress who may have been
peculiarly sensitive and who saw dan
ger to every one who had taken part in
the rebellion, introduced a bill applying
the provisions of the law to practicine
attorneys. The bill was submitted TO
the Judiciary Committee Of the Senate
and by unBnimous vote rejected 1t
afterwards however, received the sane
ton of the Senate 1t was framed for
the purpose of excluding the petitioners
and all Others similarly situated from
their rights in the United States Court
1t was not for conduct subsequent
but antecedent to the passage of the
statute the act came within the clear
meaning of the clause Of the Constitu
ton that Congress shall pass no expost
facto law or bill of attainder No rights
can be taken by law unless the accused
shall be first convicted by the officer
charged, and their rights iaclude the
holding of Office of emolument and trust
such laws as that of 1865, were penal
statutes. The Attorney General had ar
eued last Friday that the admission to
practice in the courts is not a natural
right, but ia created by law and
therefore may be regulated by law
and either given or taken away
but it is not true that Congress can by
law prohibit the appearance Of counsel
ers in the courts of the United States.--
The constitution provides that parties
charged with crime shall have the beDe-
fit of a counsel and therefore Congress
has no jurisdiction over that subject L
is true that every court is vested by the
common law with power to make regula
tions to exclude improper officers: but
Congress has no right to say who shall
or who shall not appear as counsel The
obligation which is imposed on Congress
to create courts convey with it an Obliga-
tion Oh the part of court to admit coun.
sells. The safety of the citizen depends
on the existence of the provision for the
admission of counsels. The preservation
of liberty demands, as illustrated by the
history of the world, that it should be
such body of men in all revolutionary
struggles and despotism which have dis
graced the world
Congress would convert itself iuto
tyranny, if while establishing courts. it
would exclude such class Of men The
act of Congress under review compels
man to swear against himself, while no
power is given to the court 10 inquire
into the facts. No man hy the Constitu-
tion is compelled to testify against him
self The petitioner. with others, was
involved in the effort to establish their
separate independence Of the authority
of the United States and resisted it by
levying waT The punishment for trea-
son, anterior to the passage of the act OF
1865, was death or imprisonment, but
this act imposes an additional penalty,
that persons thus accused shall not be
admitted as attorneys iii the United
States Courtl
Congress in 1862 passed law saying
that whenever the President deemed
proper, he might declare general am
nesty, while the Constitution contors
upon him the exclusive power of grant
ing pardOnS and repTleyes. The pardon
places the recipient of II in the post
tion he stood before the commission Of
the crime makes him new man, and
diyests him of all the anteCedent conse-
quences. Suppose this law of 1865 had
been made n part of the act for the pun
ishment of treason, and The man com
mitting crime had been pardoned,
would it not also have exempted him
from the punishment for the offence, and
prevented him from being excluded from
practising as an attorney i'll the United
States District Court The pardon
covers every part of the offence, and
Congress cannot, after the pardon has
been granted, pass law TO punish for
the offence pardoued The disgraceful
fact is made public and published before
the world that Congress undertook
to interfere by denying the power TO par
don, as conferred by the Constitution
exclusively on the President, without
limit. Congress cannot say 10 the peri-
TONER you shall be tried for treason after
having been pardoned. Ifthis was true
of one class of crimes il was true of
others,
Mr.. Johnson quoted from various Judi.
eial opinions to fortify the points rs
ground by him presented. The court
holds the matter under Amusement, aud
has adjourned until Monday next
Heavy Robbery.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 22,-The Sanitary
., r,---.:z.;o,, -,-os foup1 robbad this 4 NJ