The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-06-29
DECISION IN THE
DOHNEY REGISTRATION CASE.
THE ACCUSED SENT on FOR TRIAL

On Yesterday United States Commits
sioner Cbahooa gave the following opinion
in the case Of the United States Us. Mark
Downey, charged with perjury in taking
the registration oath at the registers office
in Monroe Ward in this city:
The Alexandria Constitution provides that
no person shall be allowed to vota without
first taking an oath that he has not given aid
and comfort to tn" rebellion since January ],
1854, and prescribes means by which this
Acknowledgement may be removed. 1t IS me-
cpSsary for me 10 decide whether this dlS-
iraucniscmcnt has ever been legally removed
or not. | have only TO determine whether 1t
ever legally existed. Upon this think there
can be no doubt, for the constitution adopted
az Alexandria is now the recognized COnStitu-
ton OF Virginia. and the persons dSiranghised
by that constitution were in tact prohibited
from voting untl.the Legislature was called
together and tho disfranchiSemcut removed.
The reconstruction act Of Congress provides
that 70 ono shall b" registered aS 4 voter with.
ont previously taking an oath, part OF which
i in the following lauguaEe-tO wit - have
not been di-irarChIsed for participation III the
rebellion. XC. The evidCnc" in this case shows
that Mr.. DOWncy participated In the rebellion
after January l. 1854, and that on the 18TH
day Of June, l~G-, he took he oath under the
act of Congress referred 10 above
1t j. argued by the counsel tor Mr.. Downey,
first, that the words "iurc ant jccR' convey
an entirely different meaning from what
would be expressed by the words hare aereT'
Je,u. and that "b0Ce i,o, jg'n refers 10 the
present and not to the past, and consequently
in considering the clause in the Alexandria
Constitution we should not determine whe-
thpr Mr.. DOwucv had been d!strlnChIsed at
some past time, but COnlu" ourselves solely TO
the question, Whether he is now diSiranchlsed
under that constitution On this point | am
ofOriniOn that "NUre mt bT,it iigrJrrtcLiSti in
ilt,.. .,,stf /, -
10 time past.
charged with knowingly and wIlfullv taking
n IrI-c oath, and that IL ~ not even pretended
that he committed Il WiliUl wrong. II IS clear
that when swearing to a fact it is ncCe Ssary TO
coUstitut" perjury hat the person swearing
should know that what he swearS 10 i ialse
ut the time he sWcarS, or at least that hc has
not good grounds for believing ~ the time
what he swears TO. Bur there Is a distinction
between ordinary facts and legal facts in
this, that every one is presumed 10 know the
law, and cannot plead ignorance - IN excuse.
The rule that ignorance Of the law Is no eX-
Gus" operates harshly in many cases. The law
may b" of difficult Interpretation. JUrists
may d..rr rs 10 its meaning. 1t IS certainly
very hard in such cases 20 presume that plain
citizen should know the law, when in point of
fact the wisest ana most leafncd in the profes.
sion do not know it. Bul ! am not aware
that even in cases Of this KIND tn" rule has
ever been relaxed. Whether it should b" re-
laXcd in the present case l., aS II seems 10 me-,
not within my province TO determine. Acting
rs = commissioner, ] am only TO inquire wEe-
ther there is probable cause 10 believe that the
accused Is guilty Of the offence he Is charged
with, and if there be such probable cause 10
believe that he i t,ctHic0ig guilty of the
offence it does not rest with mo to say that he
is morally suIltless, and therefore should be
discharged.
am of opinion that applying the rule that
ignorance Of tn" law does not excuse, the
81. IA. . 1,