The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-03-19


to participate in tho elections in this
State. fr
IA colloquy here ensued between Mr..
Ferguson and Mr.. Lamb, in course of
which the latter explained that the law
quoted by the former was passed by the
General Assembly of the reorganized
government of Virginia about n year
after the constitution for the New State
had been adopted by the people within
its proposed boundaries. Mr.. Fergu-
son resumed.1
Then, Mr.. Speaker, we have here the
cotemporaneous expo 81 ion of the Con-
stitution by the Legislature of Virginia.
as to what the term "Citizen" in this
state meant: law passed while the
Constitution itself was being adopted
in this State, in organizing a new State
out of the fragments of the old--a law
pissed cotemporaneous with the Con-
stitution under which we are acting,
declaring that men guilty of the very
acts reciIed in this bill should be deem
ed TO have expatriated themselves and
ne deemed no longer citizens of this
State.
Now, Mr.. Speaker, want to call the
attention of the House to another thing.
1t will be seen by reference to the fifth
section of article III of the Constitu-
tion, already referred to by the MEM
ber from Ohio that that section pro-
vides that ''every person elected or APP
tpointed to any office or trust, civil or
"exercise the authority or discharge
"the duties of the same make oath or
affirmation that he will support the
Constitution of the United States and
''the Constitution of this State" The
Legislature has added another and dis
tinct oath. The section continues land
"eyery citizen of this State may, in
"time of war, insurrectiOn or public
-"danger, he required by law to make
Hthe like oath or af1irmution, upon pain
"of suspension of his right of voting
"and holding Office under this Consti-
" tuition" Now, suppose under the
new light dawned on my friend from
Ohio, he will coneede If the Legislature
could add to the oath required of an
officer, it can also add to the oath re-
.0uired of n voter before he is allowed
10 vote. The same liberalitY of con-
struction my friend must concede-as
he now rather thinks we could pre-
scribe it to Office holders-would give
us the right TO prescribe it to voters;
and the only question would De, what what
is to be regarded as u state of "publlc
danger,"-because this is to be done in
times of "war. insurrection or public
dhnger." Now what is to be regarded
as a time of "public dnnger?" Are we
to leave this question to the judges of
election-the inspectors and supervi-
sor? One would say it was Il time
of "pubIic danger'' when another would
say there was not any "public danger,
and therefore law to that effect would
amount to nothing at all. L say the
Legislature are the judges rs to what
constitutes public danger" We have
the right to say for all time to come,
there is "public danger" in allowing
these men who have been engaged i'll
armed hostility against the Govern
ment, and using all their powers to de-
stroy il, to vote. There is always "pub-
lie danger'' in allowing them to vote.
say the very fact of allowing these
men 10 come back and participate in
our elections with full rights of citizen
ship creates such danger as requires
the Legislature to prevent them carry
ing out their mischievous purposes by
coming back to destroy the Govern
ment mt the ballot-boX which they
failed to destroy by force of arms.
The gentleman from Ohio comedies it
ns right that these men ought not to be
allowed to vote. He saws himself there
is danger in allowing them to vote, and
he is in favor of calling convention 10
prevent them-iShe1I the proper time
comes. The difference between himand
myself is that think the proper lime
has come. am not willing to resort to
some remote time and measure of re-
dress when think we have the consti-
mtionnl power to redress this wrong at
once. This bill does no more than re-
affirm the principles already established
by our legislation. Everything in this
bill, every principle of it, is in one
shnpe or other recognized by already
existing law; and L say we cannot be-
lieve, and we are not to believe, that
the Legislature in prescribing who
should be citizens ever intended that
public enemy of this State should be
regarded as a citizen. Why, sir, look
at the principle of construction under
the law of forfeiture. We can take the
property of these men, strip them of
everything they own on earth, but ac-
cording to the gentleman from Ohio,
we cannot stop them from voting. Now
| would like to know how such a
man would stand affected towards the
government. In pretty condition to
support and sustain the government,
which had rendered him n pauper and
beggnrl a nice frame Ofmind towards
the Statei A beautiful, disciple to eN-
ercise the right Of suffrage in II govern
ment which he hated worse than the
lower regions-ifa rebel is supposed 10
have any objection to that region. 1t is
II Inookery to say that while we have
tho right to strip him of every dol
lar of his property, declare him pub
lie enemy, to say these acts which he
has done shall expatriate him, yet to
say mt the same that we must concede
'tofbnt man thus ostracized and thus
prescribed, and deprived of every other
right, the right to vote and assist in
our electionsl The propo-
sition seems to me too plain for further
argument.
Mr.. Lamb having followed briefly
in reply, Mr., Ferguson resumed
= Lei us see " here the difficulty is; for
1T is all in a nutshell, by the conces-
sions OF the gentleman from Ohio. He
has frittered away all the positions he
took, and now got down where he
seems to lind his side of the question
very difficult. BY the first section OF
the third article of the constitution 1t IS
provided that the white male "citizenS"
of the State shall be entitled TO vote.-'
BY the sixth section of the first article
it is declared that The citizens oftbe
State are the citizens of the United
States residing therein" Now, If a
man is not a citizen of the United States,
under the provisions of the sixth sec
ton of the first article, he is not citi-
zen of this State, and therefore under
the first section of the third article
cedes that public enemy is not citt-
zen of the United States, be-
cause Congress has passed an express
law declaring he shall not be citizen
of the United States. Now, then, n,thesei
men being public enemies and not citi-
zens of the United States, and therefore
not citizens of this State, would like
to know, in any common sense view OF
this case, how this this bill violates the
provisions of the Constitution. 1t sim
.ply says these public enemies who have
done the things recited by theact Tread
a while ago and thereby expatriated
themselves; who have done the acts re-