Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-01-21

| pofmltltu W ttou" VI =,
rage without taking the oath. Falls
swearing is made punishable by impris
onment in the Penitentiary.
This oath is without any precedent II
this cou ntry which the Court could dis
cover 1t is, first, retroactive, and
taken wears hence would cover the inter
yenine period. In other countries ties
oaths we're limited to the present, sn'
were not administered in particular in
stances OF past misconduct Secondly
the oath is not only directed against IN
diyiduals who opposed the acts OF thu
Government, but denounces their desires
and sympathies. 1t makes no dlstinc
ton between acts arising from mallgnitJ
and acts springing from affection. lfanJ
one ever expressed sympathy for the
rebellion, even if he were connected by
the closest ties OF blood, he is declared
unable to subscribe to the oath, and Il
debarred from the employments specihed'
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 call
ings and pursuits within Its lurls-
diction. But it by no means follows
that the State can inflict punish
ment for acts which were not punish
able when committed. 1t was evident
from the nature Of the pursuits and
professions of parties placed under dis
ability by the constitution of Missouri
that their acts had no possible relation to
their fitness for their pursuits and pro-
LESSONS. There was no connection be-
tween the allegation that Cummins left
the State to avoid the draft and the ad-
ministration of the sacrament of his
church; nor can fact of that kind, or
words of sympathy for those in rebellion,
show the unfiiness of lawyers, or profess
sors or teachers, or their want of ability
in acting as managers or trustees OF cor
porations 1t was manifest on the sim
Die statement of their acts that there was
no such relation. The oath could not
be applied as to whether the parties were
qualified or not The oath was intended
to reach persons, not their calling not
because their acts untitled them for their
calling, but because it was thought their
acts we're deserving of punishment, and
in no way but by depriving them of cit
izenship.
The Court did not agree that less than
the deprivation of life, liberty and prop
erty was no punishment at all. A dis
qualification from holding office, as an
impeachment, may be a punishment;
also, the preventing attorneys practicing
in the Federal Courts By the statute
20 and 10y of William Third, any person
speaking against the christian religion,
or speaking or writing against the Di-
vine Spirit, was liable, for the first of
Tense, to be rendered incapable Of holding
offices of trust or profit, and for the sec
oud, to be sent to prison. Statute 2,
George Third, for contempt against the
Kings authority, took away the right to
receive any legacy, deed, or gift, or vote
at elections for Parliament, with pen
atty of $500. Blackstone says the loss
of liberty consists in the loss of lands or
profits Of lands for life, and disabilities
from holding offices Of honor or emolu-
ment. Among the Romans the loss of
liberty was disability ofall Of the priv
ileges of members of the family, or citi-
zenship; in France, deprivation of civil
rights and of eligibility for office, or of
being guardian or trustee, or being en-
ployed in schools or seminaries of learn
ing The theory on which our institu
tions rests is, that all men have certain
inalienable rights, among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Thus all places of honor aud position are
open to every one, and all are protected
equally under the law. Any deprivation
of rights for past conduct is punishment,
and cannot otherwise be defined.
The Court then proceeded TO the con-
sideration of the constitutional question.
The Constitution contains what may be
deemed bill of rights for each State
1t says no State shall pass bill of at
tainder or er post .facto law. A bill of
attainder is a legislative act, which in
wolves punishment without trial. If less
than death, it is bill of pains and pen
allies. A bill of attainder includes pains
and penalties. 1t assumes the guilt of
the parties without the safeguard Of trial,
and it fixes the degree of punishment in
accordance with its own idea of the
offense. Justice Story says bills of this
kind we're mostly passed in England
during the rebellion in England, or the
gross substance of them, forgetting JUS
tee and trampling upon the rights of
others Such bills are generally directed
against individuals by name by the
eighth Henry i. vas declared that Earl
Kildare and his abettors, confederates,
or adherents should stand aud be at
tanned and convicted of high treason, AS
though every one of them were properly
named as engaged in fact So the de-
claratiou in Charles the Second that
Earl caralan should suffer exile.
If the Sd article of the Constitution of
Missouri had stated in terms that Cum
minis was guilty of being in armed hos
tility to the United States, or had said he
had left the State to avoid being drafted,
and that he was therefore deprived of his
right to preach or teach in the institu-
tions of the land there is no question
that this would be a hill of attainder in
view of the Constitution. If the clause,
instead Of mentioning his name, had de-
clared all persons subject to like depre-
dations, the clause would be equally
open to objection; and if it had de-
ciared tina. all such persons would
be held guilty, provided that by
day specified they did not do GER
tain acts, that would be within the con-
stitutional inhibition. In all these cases
it would be legislative judgment without
the form of security az citizens es:ab-
lished by our tribunals. The question
presented Is one Of form and not Of sub
stance. The existing clause presumes
parties guilty, from which they cannot
release themselves without an expurga-