The tri-weekly news. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1865-1876, 1866-05-31

~ -" 40 p'SSNt WI VIC AtbiI
ct January, lSG5-vcry near the end
OF the struggle. 1t fixes 10 period OF
time, as that he has not aided the rebel.
hon since The date of the act, but it is
general. The language is | have never
voluntarily borne arms, &c, embracing
The whole period of his hfe. Now sup.
pos" the lawycr OF the applicant for nd.
mission, dld bear arms against Govern
men', or did aid or countcnance those
who did in 1861, is not This an cn post
fdcto law as to him? Was the Eorfci.
lur" OF his property in his office, or of
hIs right of being admitted TO the Office
on complying with the rules prescribed
by The conrt, any part OF the penalty en-.
acted by Congress against the Offence,
at or before the tim" Of its commission ?
It. certainly was not. 1t formed no part
nt the penalty prescribed by law against
the offence in 1861 it only adds to :hr
penalty already III existence the Iorr
ture OF his right TO practice law in the
courts of the United States, or IN the
language of Mr.. Justice Chase, mnictS
II greater punishment than the law an
annexed 10 the crime when committed
In addition to the old penalty, it Sriz"s
anu i"rirItS iiS estate in his Office, which
could not be domr, because 40 pr"vions
laws, IN the language of Mr.. Justice
Marshall, rendered him liable to that
punishment And in the language of
the Supreme Court OF Massachusetts, in
koSs case above cited, il does not in
crease the old. it adds new punishment"
Tor an oiirmcc committed before the pas.
sag". How could The al'orcy. at the
time "l committing the offence in 1861,
Know, IN the language Of the last named
court the whole extent of the punish
ment which WAS not prescribed till Jan.
uary, 1868. 1t is also &C post Gtcto
when tested by the four, II rule laid down
by Mr. Justice Chase 1t changes the
the legal rule Of all evidence and rccciv
cS less and Il ili.,"... .-.:.-.-.- 49, -
law requires 1T the time Of HE commits
sion OF The ollrnSe, to convict the offend.
er; in this. that it makes This bare r"fu.
sal to answer ON oath, whether he has or
has npl committed the offence coucln.
sive evidence OF his guilt, anI is in at.
feet a Judgment Of forfeiture.
1t may be contend"d here, rs II
has been elsewhere. tlat this test oath is
not penalty nor .hc act Of imposing 1t
a penal statute, ,hut that it is an addition.
al qualification for Office prescribed By
Congress. Ii is not necessary that
discuss here the power Of Congress to
prescribe other qualifications, than those
prescribed i'll the Constitution for its own
members, or any other officer OF the
United S'aleS | presume there are
few advocates of The position that Con,
grrSs has power To prescribe the Qunliti.
carons Of any officers OF tie United
States. What power has Congress to
prescribe til" qualifications of the Cover.
nor OF State, member Of the State
Legislature II Judge of Court? 1t
certainly has none, though they are all
citizens of Tie United States, aud all
officers. An Attorney ut law is an
officer of Court, but not an officer Of
the United States. He Is admitted by
the court under rules prescribed b. to
practice IN the Court, and is answcrablc
alone to, the court
This is the construction given to it by
Congress itself. The act Of July, 1862,
prescribed the test oath for all officers Of
the United States That of January,
1865, declares that Attorneys at Law
shall take the same oath before they are
permitted 10 practice in the United