The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1866-03-21
Argument Before the Supreme Court
as to tho Test Oath. IL ~ S

Argument Before the Supreme Court
as to the Test Oath. - ~ 81
Considerable progress was made to- 4
day in the Supreme Court in the
argument OF, the test oath case. Mr..
Mari, Mr.. Stansbury and the Attor-
neyG General all made their arguments,
and the Hon. Reverdy Johnson spoke
nearly an hour, and will continue his
argument tomorrow. Mr.. Mari, who 1
is himself one of the petitioners, is
lawyer from Louisiana. He made
most able and conclusive argument,
which seemed to have great weight
with the court. He contended that
Congress had no power to prescribe
the OATH. They had the right to pre-
scribe an oath of Office, but, under
the Constitution, it must be. an oath
to discharge the duties faithfully. He
referred to the oath prescribed b tie
Legislature of California, and argued
that the Legislature had acted wiser
in this particular than Congress. The
Constitution of the United States
prescribes that no man shall be de-
prived of life, liberty or property,
without trial by jury and due process
of law. The legislative power of the
Government was vested in Congress,
the executive in the President, and
the Judiciary power was vested in the
judicial department. of the Govern
ment. Congress had no power to sit
in judgment on his actions. That
power belonged to this court.
The action of the Legislative DOW er
OF the Government must be for the
future md not for the past. Congress
had no right to pass an &c post ffacto
law. They had power to prescribe if
a person should do so and so. Such
person should be deprived of life,
liberty OF property. If Congress may
thus virtually forbid the exercise Of
one vocation, it may as Justly justly inter
fere with all.
The argument of the Attorney
General was quite bitter and acrimo-
NOUS in its tone. Hesaid these petit
TONERS present themselves here as
confessed traitors, and ask to be
admitted to practice here merely be-
cause they have been pardoned. He
| contended that attorneys are not
| officers. Their positions here are
mere privileges, and as such are not
restored by pardon. He was not
willing to admit traitors to all the
privileges of loyal men,
The Hon. Reverdy Johnson con-
sidered the case first in regard to the
constitutionality of the oath, and then
as to the effect of a pardon. Mr.
johnson argued that the court may
have right to prescribe who may be
its members, but Congress has not.
He established this position by cita-
tions from articles second and third
of the Constitution, and by an eluci-
dation of the principles therein con-
tanned.
Although Congress may establish
inferior courts, this court is one over
which it has no control. It is a car
dlnal maxim of law that the qualifca,
tlons of attorneys are established atd
regulated by the courts before yhich
they practice. This is judiea, not
ministerial power. Ninth Wheaton,
529, establishes that it ,1sts exclu-
slvely with court t>Idec!de who
shall practice before a. Ii Congress
had the power 4s'dx the qualifications
of attorSeys, they might fix them so
low ns IS destroy the respectability of
'Ssze par.-Cor. Neao York Neacs, 18th.