The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-17

making fun investigation into il and in re-
| quiring MIR. loan to make good the charge he
has made, or at least to bring TO their know
ledge the evidence on which he makes it. We
risk very little in saying that he has not the
slightest particle of such evidence. He has
made the charge in the mere wantonness of
party feeling,-to Crafty his personal and
political resentments and to promote, by what
be deems the most eligible method, his own
political advancement. But the Committee
should lose no time In ascertainng the truth,
and in giving il to the country. BY every day
Of needless delay they will make themselves ac-
completes III this outrageous and disgracetul
calumny.
The Late Decisions Ofthe Supreme Court
Their Political Application.
From the Herold
The two decisions pronounced in the Supreme
Court of the United States on Monday last
the one upsetting the test oath of loyalty of
the State Constitution of Missouri in reference
TO clergymen, teachers, and lawyers and the
other declaring unconstitutional the test oath
OF Congress, az applied to attorneys seeking ad-
mission to practice before the Supreme Court
are of the highest importance in their political
application. This court as in the Milligan de-
cision, five to iotr, has thus decreed that the
Missouri State Constitution, in its test oath of
loyalty, is an er post tdcto law, and in effect a
bill OF attainder, and therefore null and void
On the same general grounds, the test oath of
Congress is declared invalid, With these addi-
tional objections, that lawyers holding no
specific appointment are not officers OF the
United States, ano therefore not subject TO this
Congressional oath; and that while the Presi-
dents pardonlno power Is unlimited, his pardon
restores the person concerned 10 his full rights
OF citizenship. For exam pie, an Executive
pardon tO Jet. Davis would render him at once
eligible for the next Presdency, reinstatlng him
in the political position in which he stood as
loyal citizen before he went over into the
treason of the so-called Confederate States
These decisions result rom the concurrence
in opinion OF Justce> Field, OF California; Clif
| tord, of Name; Nelson, Of New YORK; Grler, of
| Pennsylvania; and Wayne, OF Georgia-dve.
The dissenting opinion delivered By Justice
Miller, OF Iowa, was supported by Chief Justice
Chase and Justices SWayne, OF Ohio and Davis,
OF Illinois. They hold that the Congressional
test oath Is not an eg post fdctO law nor bll OF
attalnder but "a qualification when Congress
had right to prescribe as necessary to an at
torney," and that the pardon OF the President
has no effect IN relieving MIN from the REQUIRE
ment TO take IT." In regard 60 the Missouri
oatn these dissenting Judges hold that in the
Federal Constitution, upon this subject, mo re-
strant is placed on the action of the States but
that, ION the contrary, In the language OF Story
Commentaries on the Cons s,ituuOn), the whole
power over the subject OF religion is left ex-
| clusiVely TO the state Governments, to be acted
| upon according TO their own sense OF justice
| aud the State constitution Who decides when
| such doctors disagree The majority-and here
| the majority Is only one-in both cases
| goes with the Millgan declsiOnf; and all these
decisions, while they remain unreversed, are the
| supreme law OF the land.
| What, then, is the bearing OF these decisions
| upon the all-lmportant question of Southern
| reconstruction? According to the Milhgan
! decision there can be no eXIgency in the Govern.
! ment iustltyine the overstepping OF the strict
landmarks of the Constitution. This pronounces
| the conduct OF President Lincoln in assuming
the powers OF Congress, in the absence of Con.
gress, ito raise and support armiesr to save the
| life of the nation, unjustifable. As the old
! Pharisees held that man was made for the Sab!
! bath and not the Sabbath for man, so this Milli-
| gan decision affirms that the country was made
| for the Constitution and not the Constitution for
| the country. According to these two later
| decisions neither Congress nor any State can
| establish any qualifications of loyalty bearing
| upon the participants in the late Rebellion short
! OF a regular trial and convection. This NAV be
! strict Interpretation of the Constitution; but
| as q party accused of treason must be tried in
! the district where the overt act was committed,
and as under this requirement no Jury can be
| found 20 convict, how is Congress to make any
discrimination between loyal citizens ana Rebels
in me work OF Southern reconstruction?
There Is remedy suggested in Mr. Justice
MllleTs dlssenting opinion upon these two late
cases. and in the case which he recites. of an
| appeal to this Supreme Court from fine i'm
| posed upon Catholic priest of New Orleans for
| violating local ordinance relating to funeral
! rites, restricting them under the penalty i'm
! posed to the Obituary chapel. Upon this ap-
| peal the supreme Court OF the United States re-
! piled that 1.-THE Constitution makes no pro vision
Tor protecting the citizens of the respective
States IN their religious liberties. This is left
10 the Stare Constitution, and laws Nor is
there any Inhibition imposed by the Constitu-
ton in this respect on the States" This late
! decision touching the test oath applied to a
| Catholic priest in Missouri reverses this former
! decision; and here lies our remedy The deci-
! sions o. the Supreme Court are not binding
upon the Court. If, therefore, the latest deci-
! slons OF that bouy are all tending to the conclu-
! sion that the lale war for the Union was not
| only failure, but q blunder, which has left us
! constItuuonally just where we stood the year
! before the war, we have only to reconstruct
! the Court in order to reverse these decisions
and 10 secure such interpretations OF the Con-
stitution as will proclaim the great fixed fact
/ that the war for the Union was neithe blunder
nor failure, but great revolution, the issues
| OF which have become the Constitution to the
/ Supreme Court.
! This Is one remedy, and there is some reason
| to suspect that 1t Is the remedy contemplated
! in Congress in the proceedings instituted for
! the Presidents impeachment and removal in
! order TO reach this court But there is still an
! other remedy. 1t lies in The pending Constitu-
iional amendment. Upon this platform, in the
name OF General Grant, as the candidate of the