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

Now, some Of these were not oiienses
when the acts were committed. II was
not then an oiiense to avoid the enrol
ment or the draft, how much soever il
might be matter of censure. Some OF
the acts at which the Constitution was
directed were oienses at the time, but
the clause which prescribes further pen
nlties is within the nature Of an &c
post facto law. The clause in ques.
ton subyerts the presumption OF
innocence and perverts the rules
OF evidence, which by the com.
mon law are fundamental. II pre-.
sumes the parties TO be guilty, and de.
clares their innocence can be shown only
in one way, and that by expurgation.
Put this clause in the form Of legisla-
tive act, and it would read Be IL en-.
acted, ETC., That all persons in armed
hostility to the United States shall, on
conviction, not only be punished as the
law provided at the time of the ohense,
but also rendered incapable Of holding
offices Of trust, honor, or emolument, or
exercise the Office Of a teacher or priest,
etc.
No one could doubt that this third ar
tiele, if thus rendered, would be eT post
facto, because it would be adding new
punishment for an old offense-for an
otfense not punishable at the time of en-
actment. 1t would impose penalties
without the form of judicial proceedings.
The Constitution of missouri imposed an
oath which it was impossible for all to
take 1t was an impossible condition.
The Constitution Of the United States
cannot be evaded in the form by which the
power of the State is exerted. If this
can be accomplished by indirect means
the constitutional inhibition may be eva
ded at pleasure. Take the case of man
tried for treason, and, if convicted, par
doned. Nevertheless, the Legislature
might prescribe that, unless he took the
oath that he never did the act charged
he should never hold Office of honor or
profit
Suppose the minority should get the
control of the State Government, nothing
could prevent them from requiring that
every person, as a condition of holding
office of honor, profit, or trust, should |
take an oath that he never advocated,
advised, or supported the imposition of
the present expurgation oath. Under |
this provision the most fragrant viola
tons of justice may be committed, and
individuals deprived of their civil rights. |
A question rose in New York in 1888 |
upon statute of the State, which in
volved an expurgatory oath as a means
of punishment. The subject was re-
garded so important as to engage the at
tention of eminent lawyers and distln-
guished statesmen of the time. Alex
ander Hamilton demonstrated that it
was in violation of the Constitution,
which secured the rights and Liberties OF
the people as the result Of the revolution.
1t was a wise axiom that every man is
believed to be innocent until he is
proved guilty. The reversing Of this was
to hold out bride of perjury. 1t deprived
the citizen of the advantage of leaving
the burden of proof on his prosecutor.
Let US not forget that trial by jury should
remain inyiolable forever, etc. The same
view was embraced by the judiciary on
analogous questions. The Court said
in conclusion, the judgment Of the Su-
preme Court of the State of Missouri
must be reversed, with directions to en-
ter Judgment to reverse the judgment of
the Circuit Court of Pike county, and
also with directions to said Circuit Court
to enter an order dischsreing the defen-
lant from imprisonment, and permitting
him to 60 without delay.