New-York tribune., 1866-05-05
THE MISSOURI OATH.

The Missouri Republican responds to our request to
"quote the test oath, and show why and wherein II
debars from voting any who has been on the side
of the Union throughout the late struggle" Ot the
oath it says
The new Constitution Of this declares art H. Sec
81 any election held by the people DO person shan pc
qualified who has ever been in armed hosy 70 he
United States the lawful authorities thereof or 10 ne
of this STATE or has ever gwen ad comfort com com
tenance support TO persons engaged IN any sneh hos
with a long list of other disqualihcaons The oath pre-
scrbed for voters intended to cover this cru
with the terms third section Of the second article OF the
Constitution and that they have never directly or ndec
done any Of the acts therein specified
Il then undertakes to show that this oath debarred
from voting among Others Gen. Frank F. Blair,
because he commanded regiment of United States
forces at the capture of Camp Jackson in 1861, which
was under command of Clab. Jackson, then Governor
of Missouri The only question at issue is, therefore,
whether Gen. Blair by the act of attacking the Cao
Jackson camp, was in the meaning OF the section oi
the Constitution above quoted, "in armed hostility
to the Government of the State"
We answer that it is absurd to say that he was.
Gen. Blair has stated his own case in his proceeding
in the United States Circuit Court against Ridgcly
and Thompson, the judges Of Election who refused
his vote. He says:
"Thot the breaking Of the late civil war the plaintiff
took up support the Of the Union aud avs OF
the nd Sate aud at Camp Jac son and other hed as
Coole commanding Of onted states M Ste
by the Rebel Governor OF said state sup
op Gotten M under an act OF the Legislature State OF
Missouri and commanded by Sterling Price Re Gen
ea by Gov jackson and IN arms against Tue
said Government Of the United states
The question was argued at that time very fully by
the Hon. Charles d. Drake, and we do not think that
argument can be answered We should be equally
content to rest the case single point, popularity
stated The State of Missouri was one of the United
States. Its Governor and Legislature had taken an
oath to support the Constitution Of the United States
In a CERTAIN limited sense Clab. Jackson and his adj
mnstration might be said to be the Government of
the State Of Missouri" long they within the
scope OF their official duty, aud in accordance with
their oaths. The moment they stepped outside OF
either they ceased 10 be in any sense and for any pur-
pose, the " Government" of the State. When acting
as il is admitted Clab. Jackson was acting in viola
on Of his duty and Of his OATH whoever opposed him
was no more opposing the Government of Missouri"
than would a sheriff have been had he arrested the Gov
ernor on a warrant for embezzling the public funds
10 maintain any other theory is not merely to assert
the legality Of Secession but to imply that an Officer
has vested interest in his Office which cannot be de-
stroyed by his maeasance TO declare that the State
ia poweress to arrest one Of its own officers when
wrong.doer either within or without the scope of his
duty and to carry the doctrine ofpersona inyolabty
further than the law of Great Britain ever carried it
in reference to the Crown Caib. Jackson was in arms
against the United States Government at Camp Jack
son, and though he pretended to summon the militia
to support him, in accordance with the militia laws OF
the State, he might as well have summoned the militia
to aid him in committing highway robbery If he
had done the latter and Gen. Blair had resisted him,
or had attacked the camp from which the robbery was
about to be committed does The Missouri Republican
think Gen. Blair would have been " in armed hostility
to the Government of the Statei" We pause for a
rnnlv