The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1866-09-25

not asked to decide whether the consti.
tutional amendment is now in force; he
was not asked to decide whether Mr.
ARMSTRONG is guilty of treason NOE
whether he is, in every respect, a uan
fed voter. These questions, whlon aio
those upon which the argument OF inc
norro Suffrage organ is based, were not
nresented in the case, ana were NOT
decided by the Judge. The only point
decided by Judge HARRISON was that
| he registrar could not require Of the opp'i'
oants for registration such an oath as that
contained in the registration act, as condl-
ton precedent to recording his name In
the list of voters.
In the next place, the validity OF the
| decision may be seen in the fact 'ha'
tbe constitution nowhere authorizes
township registrar or Board OF Regis
tration to try, convict and punish any
individual for crime. 1.-THE registrar In
determining who are voters, is to be
governed by the constitutional proVis-
ion" but he is no more authorized TO
employ a test oath for the purpose OF as
certainipg who are qualified to vote,
than he is to decide arbitrarily, accord
ing to his own will. The constitution
prohibits felons from voting, but the
most rabid advocate of the test oath
system will scarcely contend that
registrar is authorized, in determining
who are voters, to make mon swear
that they have not committed murder,
arson, burglary, or theft. And yet there
would be precisely the same legality IN
such an oath as there is In that requiring
citizens to swear that they have not
committed treason, The constitution
itself provides the manner in which it
may be ascertained whether the citi-
zen is guilty of any OF, the crimes to
| which the penalty of acknowledgements
is attached; and that method is by
trial by jury" to be held publicly and
without unreasonable delay" and in
which trial "the accused shall be in
formed of the character and cause of the
accusation, and be confronted with the
witnesses against him, and shall have
the assistance of counsel for his defense
and compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor. It is by
this method alone that it can
be legally ascertainea whether
citizen is guilty Of the acts spoken of in
the constitutional amendment, and
should, therefore, be deprived of his right
to vote. The Constitution further pro
vides that No person shall be held TO
answer for treason, felony, or other
crime not cognizable by Justice, unless
on presentmeut or indictment of grand
jury" Now with what show of reason,
or with what sort of decency can it be
claimed by any man who has ever
any Of its provisions beyond the recently
adopted amendment that petty town
ship registrar, probably the meanest and
most ignorant man in his township, Is
authorized to try, convict and punish
bis fellow citizens by Acknowledgement
for the crime OF treason? And yet this
is precisely what the test oath in the
registration act does, and does too
in a manner still further violative of the
Constitution, by compelling the accused
to be witness against Himself
The decision in the Hampshire county
case simply goes to the extent OF declar-
lag this oath unconstitutional far
Their Mr.. ARMSTRONG applied to be reg
istered aud refused IS take the oath; the
court decided that the oath could not be
legally required. The decision is based
upon sound principles, both in law aud
in common sense, aud no. all spins.
tries Of the InteHjgeRcer can shake It, u"r
tho rawlings of the radicals ipju'e the
fair fame of its author.
----s.a%~.s-<4s~-s.azIasssssza
II nj n