Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1866-03-01
WHEELING WIsT VIRGINIA, \
El...... DS.i, IOcR

WHEELING WIsT VIRGINiA,f
February 25th, 1866.
In my former letter I reported the
decision of the Court of Appeals in
regard to the admission of returned
rebel attorneys to the Court Of this
State. The substance of that decis-
ion was this, that attorneys are not
officers within the meaning Of the act
of November 10Th, 1868, and are
therefore not compelled to take the
oath prescribed by that act. The
rebel elemeut of this City and of the
State at large manifest considerable
cxultation over this decision; but
their triumph was short lived. For
at once a bill was introduced into
the Legislature, and in few days
passed both Houses by an almost
unanimous vote, requiring all attor-
neys practicing in the Courts Of this
State to take the oath prescribed for
officers, and which oathawill efRectu-
ally cnt off from the practice of the
law all persons who have in any
manner, shape or form participated
in the rebellion.
This attorney act is hut part and
parcel of a course of -legislation
adopted by the present and former
Legislatures all directly tending to
ostracize the rebel element of the
State from political power and in
fuenee. No matter what view Con-
gress or the President may adopt on
the question of reconstruction, this
little State of West Virginia seems
determined that within her borders
at least treason shall be made odious
and traitors punished. All State,
county and township officers, execu-
tors, administrators, school teachers
and attorneys are now by law re-
quired to take the oath of office above
referred to, so that all these POSITIONS
of power and trust are effectually
cloed against every man who par
tlcipated in the rebellion.
But tue Legislature has not stopped
here, but are also determined to close
the ballot boz against rebels They
are effecting this in the shape of an
amendment to the Constitution. l
give the amendment in full-''No
person who, since the first day of
June, 1861, has given or shall give
voluntary aid or assistance to the
rebellion against the United States,
shall be citizen of this State or be
allowed to vote at any election held
therein, unless he has volunteered
into the military or naval service of
the United States and has been or
shall lie honorably discharged there
from" or course this amendme t,
if adopted, disfranchises every rebel
within the State. The amendment
passed both houses by large ma
jority, and is now to be submitted to
the people. 1t is the general opin-
ion here that it will be ratified, and
this opinion is based upon the fact,
that the amendment was made q
principal issue in the election of the
present Legislature, and they have
passed it with hardly a dissenting
voice. But to insure its adoption, a
bill has passed the House aud will
undou stedly pass the Senate, provi-
ding for registration of the votes of
the State, and you may be assured
that the name of no rebel will be
found upon that list. The vote on
the Registry Bill in the House stood
SO for to 6 against the bill. The
above will give yoT some idea of the
way in which rebels are reconstructed
in this State. What is to he the re
suit OF this Legislation can not now
be fully known, but it would not be
strange if it should terminate in a
strong reaction in favor of the class
against whom it is aimed
The Court of Appeals few days
since rendered a decision OF great
interest and importance, touching
the personal liabilities of rebel army
officers for acts done in the line OF
their duty. The facts of the case
before the Court were as follows: one
Hood, military officer acting under
the orders of Governor Le.eher OF
Virginia. seized in May, 1861, guam
tity of -four and wheat, the property
of che Maxwell, and used the same
for the rebel troops then being or.
ganized in Barbour county. At the
time the property was taken, the
Richmond convention had passed
the ordinance of secession and en-.
tered into the compact of April oath,
1861, by the terms of which the
! whole military power of Virginia was
to be placed under the control of the
President Of the Confederate States.
In word; at the time the act was
committed, state of war de faeto ex.
, isted. The question raised upon
these facts was whether Hoo1 was
personally liable to Maxwell for the
property so taken. The Court held
that he loas. The following are the
grounds upCn Which the decision oi