The weekly standard. (Port Gibson, Miss.) 1865-1867, 1866-03-17
From the Washington Dispatches.
The Test Gath.

The Test Oath.
The legal profession in this city are
well aware of the terms belonging to
the test oath that effectually raise a
barrier to their practice in U. States
courts. Senator Garland of Arkansas,
instituted proceedings in the Supreme
Court, and the following are the points
in ispetition, the leading salient points
in the argument. A Washington pa
per says:
APPLICATION OF A. n. GARLAND ETc.-
This was an ex-parte application made
on the part of Mr.. Garland, an ex-
member of the rebel Congress from Ar
kansas, to be permitted to resume his
practice in the court without taking
the oath of Office prescribed by the act
of 1862, and as extending to attorneys
practicing IN the United States courts
by the act of 1866. In December, 1860,
the petitioner was admitted to practice
in this court, taking tie oath of the
form then administered, and at that
time argued number of cases before
the court His name having since been
continued on the roll of attorneys, and
the business before the court in which
he was then engaged still remained un-
disposed of, he now presented himself
and claimed his right to practice rs an
attorney of the court, exhibiting a par
don from the President. His petition
shows that he cannot take the oath now
prescribed, as he had taken q part in
the rebellion from May 1861, until the
final surrender of the Confederate for
ces. The points on the argument were,
first, that the act of Congress prescri-
bing this oath is unconstitutional upon
it's face; and, second, that SO far as it
affected the petitioners status in this
court, it is in palpable violation of the
Constitution; third, that if it be not
unconstitutional, the pardon of the
President restores him to his rights as
an attorney of this court notwithstand
ing the oath; fourth, that as the Uni
ted States, through Congress, has col
lected revenue of the petitioner for the
privilege of being lawyer, his right
to practice in the courts of the United
States follows, at least SO far as any
obstacles thrown in the way by the oath
are concerned.
1t was also insisted that the act cf
Congress was an effectual barrier
against attorneys of the class of the
petitioner, without it required them to
take an oath that they could not take
without committing perjury, or be de-
prived of their professionalism was
their property. This point was argued
at great length, and many cases were
cited showing that lawyers practice
is lis property, his means of living, the
same as the business of any other class
of citizens is their property and their
means of obtaiaing a livelihood. The
act, therefore, in effect. deprived the
petitioner and others of his class OF
their property without due process OF
law.
| Tho application was argued some
! time since, and the court now ordered
that it be so argued on the second FRI
day in March. It's supposed that this
order is made in consequence OF the
absence of one member of the court on
the former argument.
GREAr MES4 Homer was beggari
Plautrls turned mill; Terence was 9
slave; Boethius died in jail; Paul Boz
ghese had fourteen trades; and yet he
starved viii them all; Tasso was often
pressed for q few shillings; Cervante'
died of hunger; Camoens, the writer O
the 'Luciad," ended his days in ar
t almhouse; Vaugelas left his body tc
tho surgeons to help pay bis debts II
5 England, Bacon lived life Of mean
: ness and distress; Sir Walter Raleigh
!. died in want; Milton sold his copy
i right of Paradise Lost for 15l, ane
/ died in obscurity; Dryden lived in pen
: ury and distress; Goldsmith's "Vica1
: of Wakefield was sold for trihr t
!, save him from the grasp of the Law