The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-09-27

days, not minor, or ofunsound mind,
or pauper, or'under conviction OF tre',
son, felony, or bribery i'll nn election"
The registry law is, therefore, cOnstitu-
tiOnal and valid, so far as it does not
except persons not excepted by the
Constitution as 1t stood when the law
was passed. And beyond this probably
no jjurist in the State would go; and eS.
peCinlly IL judge, who must decide uc-
cording to law, unbiased by political
motives. Therefore, to censure Judge
Harrison for his decision seems to us
unjust, and especially so, to base that
censure upon the fact that he has two
brothers who served the rebels. for we
know OF several who, bound by such
kindred ties to the rebels, are, notwith-
standing, true and faithful to the Union
cause. Corruption possesses the Judge,
who shapes his decisions to suit political
purposes. The decision is not that
the amendment is unconstitutional,
but that so much of tho act as
requires the oath to be taken
is so, because the Constitution as
it stood ut the time OF the enactment
does not exclude persons from voting
who have aided the rebellion. You ask
the question, "If we may not ascertain
through the registry law, who are eX-
cluded from voting under the COnsti-
tuition, how is any body to be excluded,
and how is tho constitutional test to be
applied ut nll?" and then answer,
"'rhere is no other way" Now we
would answer i'll this way, just us we
would exclude IL pauper, or any other
one Ofthe exceptions. The amendment
Is valid. 1t says no one who aided the
rebellion shall vote. Then ii is the
duty of the commissioners to sec that
none vote who arc excluded by the
Constitution. Then they are sworn to
see that none vote who gave voluntary
aid to the rebellion; aud If told that
they must admit all who are registered,
the answer is that the amendment
makes so much of the registry law
void as will permit persons TO be regis
tered contrary to the Constitution as
amended, and they can we'll afford to
stand suit on that question. So we
cannot see yet that we must give up to
the rebels. Mr.. Armstrong is mistaken
when he says that che has IL clear right
TO vnte"-nnd when he tells his fellow
rebels that they who have been resi-
dents of the State for one year, Nc.,
have right to vote. Altogether MS
taken. As he is IL lawyer, l am aston
ished that he should SO conclude. Let
the commissioners OF elections do their
duty and we fear nothing. We can
prosecute every rebel who votes ut any
rnte-und also throw out their votes by
cOntesting the election.
""i' very respectfully yours,
Grafton, W. Va, Sept. %.
In note received since the foregoing
was put i'll type, the writer of the above
says:
Ii not too late, you need not publish
the article l sent you on the 22d inst,
and since reading your remarks i'll to-
dny'si issue II see clearly" where the
Judge was wrong, and therefore take
back all said about injustice, &c.
ANOTHER LETTER FROM ANOTHER
FRIEND OF JUDGE HARRISON.
CLARKsnUNG, w. VA, Sept. 24;'6G.
Editors Imtcitigcnccr:
GENTLEMEN-An article in your pn-
per OF the 2lSt inst, headed IAN out
rageOus dccisiOn," &C., is calculated
to iujUrc Judge HurrisOn, of the Clarks-
burg Circuit, who recently held the
! Court in Hampshire county, where the
| decision was mude, which seems to be
so objectionable; and propose in few
| words, to VindicHte him from any SuS-
| picion OF disloyulty.
The decision, rs quoted by james d.
t Armstrong, simply declares that the
oath prescribed by the Registry Law is
unconstitutiOnal; and that being the
/ only question before the Court for it to
decide, involving the right of Arm
I strong to be registered AS IL voter, the
Board of Registration having made the
! return thut he was registered because
he refused TO take the oath, the Court
as matter of course, awarded the writ
| of mumtiImMS, directing his name to he
registered. But if there is any other
cause why Armstrong should not be
! registered, other than his refusal to
/ take the prescribed oath, such us being
engaged III the rebellion, the Board OF
| Registration should not register him
aud this willaccOrd with tho opinion OF
| Judge Harrison,
The. statement of Armstrong in
| regard to the order of the
| Court, as published in your
| paper is mnnifestly erroneous in sever.
al respects, and without particularizing
them it is sufficient to say that Judge
| Harrison recognizes the validity of the
recent amendment to tho constitution
and believes that registrars should be
| governed by it i'll the performance ot
their duties, and that no person Inns the
| right to vote or be registered who is oh.
nOXlOus to its provisions.
The decision of Judge Harrison ms 10
the constitutiOnulity of the test oath
was made exclusively us an impartial
t'Judge, and not because he was opposed
to the law on the other grounds for
am satisfied it WIS IL matter of regret
on his part, that he was constrained. in
the discharge of his duty, to pronounce
against it.
1t seems to me that you have taker
Armstrong's wild and false statements
for Judge HHrrisOn's opinions, whcr
nothing could be further from tho fact
and your intimatiOns that he is tine.
tured with disloynlty is so manifestly
unjust III tho opinion of nll who know
him well, thnt do not believe YOU car
hesitate to COuntcrHct the inlse impres.
sion the article is calculated to make on
the feeble mind.
Judge Harrison from the beginning
all the time through the war up to The
J present time, and now is, not only n
'thOrOugh, conscientious Union man
but nn honest, upright Judge, and o.
| pure and irreprOnChable private ChnruC
| ter. l have no interest in this matter
beyond the vindicntiOn of one OI the
| purest mon l ever knew, and the pro
motion of tho interests and influence oil
the purity of which the Judge is nu
honorable momber. l wish we had
more such Union men us he is, and es
! pecinlly that all those of the same party
would be more charitable to each other
and less disposed TO do them AN injury
upon tho false representations of Tho
rebels. Tint the Judge had brothers il
the rebel army should not be mentiOn
cd as matter of repronch to him, bu
rather as nm evidence of the thorough
ness of his Union convictions. L.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION
JUDGE THOMAS w. HARRISON AND TIL
REGIsTRATIoN LAW.
Editors LntciIigenccr:
1 have read the decision of Judp,
Thomas w. Harrison, in the Arm
strong CnSP with ArmStrOu,y's or,l ,,,,,,