Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-01-24
.fnOiher Decision OTthc Supreme
Court.


In the Supreme Court of the United
States at Washington, on Monday,
14th, Associate Justice Field said he
had been instructed to deliver the
opinion of the court in the case Of
John A. Cumnins, plaintiff in error,
against the State of Missouri, inyolv-
ing the Constitutionality Of the test
oath in that State.
The plaintiff was a Roman Catholic
priest, and convicted by the courts for
advising and preaching without first
having taken the required oath, and
sentenced TO pay a fine of 5000, and
committed to jail until paid An ap-
peal from the Circuit Court to the Su-
preme Court Of the State affirmed the
judgment.
The following is mere outline of
the opinion: The oath by the Consti-
tuition of that State imposes more
than thirty distinct afiirmations and
tests. Some of them constitute of
fenses of the highest grade, TO which
the heaviest penalties are attached.
Some of them are not recognized by
statute, while others are not blame
worthy. They require him not only
to swear that he was not in hostility
to the United States, but that he new
er manifested adherence to the cause
of the enemy, or desired triumph over
the armies OF the United States, or
that he ever expressed sympathy for
the rebels, or ever sought TO promote
the ends of those engaged in the war
against the United States authorities,
or ever left the State TO escape en-
rollment or the performance of militia
ry duty, or ever expressed his dissat-
isfaction with the government.
Every person unable to take this
oath was declared incapable of hold
ing any Office of trust, honor or emol-
ument, or of acting as a trustee, or
manager of any corporation, now or
hereafter to be established, or from
teaching in any educational institu-
tion, or holding real estate for such
religious society or congregation, &c,
and every person holding any such
Office at the time the Constitution
went into effect was required within
sixty days to take the oath in default
of taking the oath his Office became
vacant No attorney at the bar,
priest or preacher of any doctrine was
permitted TO solemnize marriage with
out taking the oath.
False swearing is made punishable
by Imprisonment in the penitentiary.
This oath is without precedent in this
country, which the court could dis
cover. 1t is first retroactive, and i'll
taken years hence it would cover the
intervening period. In other coun-
tries test oaths were limited TO the
present, and were not administered in |
particular instances of past miscon-
duct. Secondly, the oath is not only |
directed against individuals who op-
posed the acts of the government, but
denounccs their desires and sympa-
thies 1t makes no distinction be- |
tween acts arising from malignity |
and acts springing from affection IfI
any one ever expressed sympathy for
the rebellion even if he were connect
ed by the closest ties of blood, he is
declared unable to subscribe TO the
oath, and is debarrcd from the en-
ploymens specified.
The court admitted the proposition |
Of the learned counsel of Missouri,
that the State possessed all the attri- |
butes of sovereignty, and among the |
rights reserved TO the States was the
power to determine the qualifications
for Office and the conditions on which |
citizens may exercise their callings
and pursuits within its jurisdiction,
but It by no means follows that the |
State can inhict punishment for acts
which were not punishable when com
mitted. 1t was evident from She M
ture Of pursuits and professions of the
parties placed under disability by the
Constitution of Missouri, that their
acts had no possible relation TO their
fitness for their pursuits and profes-
sions. There was no connection be-
tween the allegation that Cummns
left that State TO avoid the draft, and
the administration of the sacraments /
of bis church nor can fact of that
kind, or words of sympathy for those
4 in rebellion, show the unftness OF
lawyers, or professors, or teachers, or
their want Of ability in acting as man.
|ngers or trustees of corporations. 1t
was manifest on the principal state
ment Of their acts that there was no
such relation The oath could not be
applied as TO whether the parties were
|Qualitied or not. The oath was in
fended TO reach persons-not their
'callings; not because their acts unfit
BED them for their calling, but because
u was thought their acts was descrv-
ing of punishment and in no way but
By depriving them of citizenship The
court did not agree that less than the
deprivation of life, liberty and proper
nv was not punishment at all. dis.
qualification from holding Office as an
pmpeachmont may be a punishment,
'also the preventing attorneys prac-
|ticing in the federal courts. BY the
Statutes and 10 Of William III, any
person speaking against the Christian
rellglon, orspeaking or writing against
the Divine spirit, was liable for tho
frst otiense to be rendered incapable
'oi holding offices of trust or profit
|nnd for the second, to be sent to pris-
on statute z, George Ill, for con
tempt against the Kings authority
took away the right TO receive any