The day book. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1857-1867, 1866-01-22
THE TEST OATH.

greater illiberality on the part of the domi-
nant power Of any country, than that now
exhibited by the Radical majority in Congress,
in their persistent refusal to repeal or modify
the Test Oath which was prescribed du-
ring the progress of the late war. While the
war was raging, and mems passions were
powerfully infamed by the exciting scenes
which were daily transporting throughout the
land, it is not surprising that such an evidence
of sectional bitterness and hate should have
found place upon the statute books. But
now that the war is over, and hostility to the
authority of the Government has been every
where abandoned, it is strange and passing
strange that there is not liberality enough in
the Federal Councils to repeal this obnoxious
law without further delay. The refusal of the
majority to strike this law from the statute
book, proves that Attorney General Speed
was not mistaken when he said in a recent
communication that the war is not yet over.
The Constitution of the United States fixes
the qualifications of Representative in Con-
gress. He is required to be twenty-five years
of age, to have been seven years a citizen Of
the United States, and to be an inhabitant Of
that State in which he shall be chosen. No
other qualification is required by the supreme
law Of the land, nor has Congress the power to
add to or take from the qualifications thus re-
quired. But, Notwithstanding this provision
Of the Constitution seems to be SO plain that
che that runs may read" the Radical majority,
in the mere wantonness of power, and with
that aggressive spirit which has always char
scterized them, insist upon requiring another
test They require the Representative of a
Southern constituency to swear that he has
not, in any way, directly or indirectly, given
aid, counsel or encouragement to persons en-.
gagged In the rebellion.
There are southern men, doubtless who
will be willing to swallow the oath, but we
do not envy them on account of the Con-
gressional honor which they will thus be
enabled to wear. This "Test Oath not only
oAcIuues nuuI Uue NatlonaI COUNCILS every ...e-
who sympathised with his section during the
last four years of dreadful war, but it applies
to every person holding any office of trust or
profit under the Government, and to every
attorney who offers to practice his profession
in the Federal courts.
Why should this oath be required of al at
sorney and not required of a physician, a
farmer, merchant. or mechanic? They
are all dependent alike upon their professions
for livelihood-why should one class be sin
gled out as an object of special wrath, and
placed under the ban of the Government !?
This discrimination against attorneys at law is
90 manifestly UNJUST and oppressive, that it
eers to have moved even Mr.. Thaddeus
Stevens bowels of compassion, and he has
been gracious enough to move for its repeal.
Surely, when Mr.. Stevens pronounces mea-
sure unjust and oppressive towards any class
Of the Southern people, that man must be
bold indeed who would stand forth to speak in
ts justification or defence.
The Hon. Edward Bates, of Missouri, IAN
able and profound jurist who occupied the
place of Attorney General in Mr.. Lincoln's
Cabinet, has recently written letter upon the
subject Of this article, in which he says;
"Test-oaths odious, oppressive, and coward
ly are always the resort of desperate
parties, who las violent as timidity can make
them) seize upon this method to weaken their
adversaries, whom they are afraid to meet in
fair and open controversy. 1t was of fire.
quent occurrence during the French revolu-
ton, and one remarkable instance has been
preserved for our instruction by the great his
torian of that epoch. The Two Legislative
Councils, the ancients and the five hundred
imputing to their adversaries the crime of
royalism hoped by an adroit trick, 10 get rid
of their presence in the Councils and their in
6uence with the people And so in the
forged name of repub.icanism, they decreed
that all the members of the Councils should,
on certain day, take an oath of hatred to roy
atty. The Opposition quite as good Republ-
cans in fact as their hypocritical oppressors)
resisted as best they could, complained and
protested, but they took the oath, for they
had no notion of deserving their place in the
Government, and thus leaving their unprinci-
pied adyersaries unresisted to work out their
wicked will in the misgovernment of the
country. And the philosophic historian dis
misses the subject with this brief remark
This formality of an oath so unfrequently
employed by parties, never could be consd-
cred as guaranty; it has never been any
thing but an annoyance of the conquered to
purge themselves. Justice--that was the
craft policy of the French revolutionary radi-
Gals, and our revolutionary radicals do but fol-
Lar i Ill