The Daily empire. (Dayton, Ohio) 1865-1867, 1866-08-21

4 NfaN@NNANfN'HNHH
whether any person presenting himself as
entitled 20 a scat In Congress, is OF the age
required, has been citizen Of the United
States the requisite time, and Is an inhablt-
ant Of the State from which he claims 10
be elected. They have also tho right to
'Judgc" whether his election has been legal
and whether the returns are m accordance
with the law. This is The extent Of their
ljurlsdlction. 10 say that they have the
right to exclude Representative who
possesses the qualifications prescribed by the
ConstitutioD, on account OF any alleged
deficiency Of moral character, or on ae-
count OF the alleged commission Of any
crime, is 70 assert that a majority Of Con
gress can at any time absolutely exclude
the minority from all participation In their
proceedIngs-for II the rule presented by
the Constitution is dIsregsrdcd and the dis
lcretion of Congress substituted for IL, a
majority can presribe any test oath they
please. II they have the right 10 say that
a person duly qualified under the Consti-
tuition and legally elected shall not take the
seat because he was engaged In the rebel
lion, they have the right 10 say that another
shall not be admitted because he syDipd-
thised with the rebellion, and another be-
cause he did not actively support the war
land II Congress has the right 10 prescribe
such tests as these, what is there TO prevent
the prescribing Of religious tests? We are
speaking of the question of constitutional
power. IL Congress has the right to say
no man shall be admitted 70 seat who was
a rebel they have also the right to say that
no man shall be admitted who is a Demo
crat, or a Catholic, or Jew. ts.t...,..
JoHN MoRRrssEY, for example, is no.
torious pugilist and gambler. He Is also
spoken Of as suitable candidate for Con-
gress. If constituency In New York
should duly elect JoHN MoRRIssEY their
representative TO Congress where would
that body get any rightfal authority to pre-
scribe a test oath that would exclude him?
Congress has no right or lawful authori-
ty to prescribe any test oath whatever. 1t is
for he people to sit in judgment upon the
character of candidates for their suffrages
and from their decision, under the Consti-
tuition, there is no appeal to Congress, nor
to any other power. II the people Of any
district in a State which admits negroes 10
citizenship, choose to elect negro to rep
resent them, the only questions that Con-
gress could take Jurisdiction of on the pre-
sentation of his certificate, would be
whether he possessed the qualifications pre-
scribed by the Constitution,
JOHN WILKES was excluded from the
British House of Commons, because his
character was objectionable TO the majori-
ty. His constituency resented the insult
by returning him again. r us
The Commons presumed to disqualify
him by reason of his expulsion from being
elected "again to serve in the (then) present
Parliament" - and declared his election |
void fs.H ni9 ,ni da
Mr.. MAY, the author of the Constitutional
History of England says of this action: 'If
by vote of the House, disability un-
known to the law could be created-any
man who became obnoxious, might on some
ground or other bedeclared incapable. In
capacity ,oOuId then be declareti--aot By the |
lao Of the land but By the arbitrary ,od Of
the House Of Commons" ,...c .ia..t,,
WILKES was reelected. The Commons
gave his seat to his competitor, Col. SUIT
TRELI, who received only two hundred and
ninety-six votes, to WILKES eleven hun
dred and forty-threel This was In l76s--
and thereupon followed one of the most in
teresting and Instructive struggles that
ever transpired in England, wherein the
rights of British constituency as against
the arbitrary action of the British Parlia-
ment were vindicated by the matchless ell
oquence of CHATHAM and BURKE, Lord
CAMDEN, Sir GEORGE SAvILLB, and others
comprising galaxy of the brightest names
of England. 1t was to this controversy
that the world is indebted for some of the
most celebrated and mastery of the pro-
ductions of JUNIus. The controversy in
vOlved, finally, both Houses of Parliament
and the King himself whose answer to an
appeal made by the city of London to the
Throne Lord CHATHAM boldly denounced as
''the most unconstitutional piece that ever
came from the Throne" The final issue was
that in the year 1882 after contest ex-
tending through thirteen years, the cOnsti-
tutional rights of the British people tri-
umphed and all the orders, declarations,
and resolutions respecting the Middlesex
election were expunged from the Journals
of the House, by a triumphant majority of
sixty-eight, as "beiR0 siibversiDe Of The rights
Of the tohole body Of electors Of the king
dom.n % 'I H1t
The present Congress has inaugurated a
similar contest In this country by attempt
ing to create disabilities unknown 10 the
law, and excluding men from seats to
which they are entitled under the Consti-
tuition, because they are obnoxious to the
majority, t 9. i. ttl ..s'
The rights of every constituency of the
South to-day are the rights of every con-
stituency throughout the North. If ma
jority in Congress shall be permitted to
dictate constitutional amendments tor some
Of the States to-day, they have equal right
and power to dictate others for other States
Tomorrow. If they can prescribe test
Oaths to exclude one class of men now be-