The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1866-07-17

from the various authorities, that b bill
of attainder is 50 Legislative instead Oh
q judicial conviction Of an offense ELMER
positively or conditionally. He accord
fngly commended that this law was 2
conditional conviction Of crime. and was
passed with that understanding ana
purpose. T.
Second-It is An &C post tacto law. IL
makes an act punishable which was NOT
punishable at the time the act was COM
mitted. To sustain this view he pre-
sented and reviewed several authorities,
and urged this point with tho moso
earnest powers of his mind. y He said IL
not only operated as q punishmenG, pu'
81 was 80 intended to operate. be re-
ferred to and read the debates IN the
Heuse of Delegates upon the passage OF
the bill. and was particularly emphatic
when he came to. the speech Of Mr..
Hornbrook, who had pronounced the
LAWYERS "a set of internal scoundrels," ~
and said, "let them go and work on the
roads," on +, seihl8 Il a F5ygG1
Third-It violated private contracts.
Both the contract between the Govern
ment and the lawyer and the contract
between the lawyer and his client. i
Fourth-It violated the provision of
the Federal Constitution, which de-
clares that mo one shall be convicted of
treason except upon the proof Of two
witnesses of the same overt act, or upon
confession in open court" Here he re
mains silent and guilt is inferred from
silence without proof or confession.
Fifth-It violates that provision OF
the constitution which declares that "no
one shall be compelled to give evidence
against himself" "a ~ ~ -. - D. 81 !,
Sixth-That it violates that clause
which declares that his person, liberty
and property shall be protected He
affirmed that q lawyers profession was
his property, and referred to varions au-
thorities to sustain his position.
Seventh-That the State Constitution
had prescribed the kind of oath which
the Legislature might require Of the cit
izen in times Of insurrection or rebel.
lion. But this was not such an oath as
the one referred to. When the law
passed there was no instruction or re-
bellion. Lawyers were but citizens, as
| the Court had decided (; and the rule
unias erpressio est erclMsio alterias is ap-
plicable to the case and excludes the
power exercised. .I tHg
Eighth-That no one can be convicted
of criminal offense without the verdict
Of a jury. ~.
Ninth-That the State Constitution
provides that no amendment
thereto shall ever have any
retrospective operation or effect. Here
the legislature is assuming powers denied
even to a convention of the people. ss
Tenth. He said he had been pardoned
by the President of the United States be.
fore the passage of this law. By the
pardon and amnesty all his acts, what
ever they might have been, had passed
into oblivion. q.
He said the Supreme Court of the
United States had this subject under con.
sideration, and majority of the judges,
and all but one northern men, was of
opinion that similar law was un.
constitutional He referred to Hon. Rev
erdy Johnson's letter on this subject.
He said the American judges had built
up for themselves glorious monument
to their learning and independence.
/ They had never shrunk Il from
their duty, no matter how intensely
political parties were divided, nor how
much governors or legislatures were ef-
fected by party feelings, the judges had
not given way to this or any extraneous
| influence. That if he had to die a mar.
tyr, next to the cause of Christianity he
would prefer dying a martyr to the
cause of truth and justice. .
\ He cold fhot uoy,oa v,araOnp naQpnQd. tn
think that the amendment to the State
constitution would validate the law, but
he said for two reasons it conld not.
First, because the law was passed before
the amendment was adopted, and If void
then it still is Second, to make the
amendment effective there must be a
conviction under it of giving voluntary
aid to the rebellion. '.'s - L.- ..
Mr.. Boggess proposed to establish that
the act of the I4th of February 1866, is
no law or rule of action, because it con.
travenes the United States constitution.
First. AS to subsisting contracts be-
tween clients and attorneys at the time
of TIL, passage of the act, the act is void
Because it in pairs the obligation of
| such contracts .. .
Second. The act is in substance and
effect bill of attainder, and therefore
void.
Third The act is penal and retroao-
tive and ther fore erpost tacto, and
void. "
Foulth That the object of the act,
(however dis. uised by the general
terms employee in framing it) was to
punish all attorneys engaged in the late
war since the Goth of June, 1868, and
not as contendcd by the Attorney Gener-
al, on y to mad additional qualifications
for a 5orneys. For if such could have
been he object it is difficult to find any
reason why the commission of the acts
between the Goth of June, 1868, and the
time of application to practice
should possess any disqualifyiHg effects,
or SO different from the same acts
whether committed before the Goth of
June, 1863, or after admission to the bar.
Mr.. Miller's argument was based on
these two points:
First. That Il 9 law IN question was in
tended to be and was punitive it its
character Thatit was so intended by
the Legislature That being of that
character, and rarrying its test back to
the Goth of Jute, 1868, it was OK post
facto, and therefore against the Consti.
tuition of the United States.
Second That The surrender of General
Lee, the procl' nation of pardon and
amnesty of the 10Th of May, 1865, and
the special paI dons and amnesty filed
ed cd H.