Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1867-07-04
Commissioners Decision in the Down
ey Registration Case.

| On Friday the 28th ult., United States Com
missioner Chahoon gave the following opinion
in the case Of he United States rs. Mark Down
ey, charged with perjury in taking the regis
traton oath at the registers Office in Monroe
Ward in this city
| The Alexandria Constitution provides that
| no person shall be allowed to vote without first
taking an oath that he has not given aid and
comfort to the rebellion since January l, 1864,
and prescribes a means by which this disfran-
ch;sement may be removed. 1t is not necessary
for me to decide whether this disfranchisement
hascvcr been legally removed or not / have
only to determine whether it ever legally ex-
| listed. Upon this think there can be no doubt.
for the constitution adopted at Alexandria is
now the recognized constitution Of Virginia.
and the persons disfranchised by that constitu-
| ton were in fact prohibited from voting until
| the Legislature was called together and the
disfranchisement removed. The reconstruction
act OF Congress provides that no one shall be
registered as o voter without previously tax
ing an oath, a part Of which is in the follow
ing language--to wit: 81 have not been dis
franchised for participation in the rebellion, %
&c. The evidence in this case shows that Mr.
Downey participated in the rebellion after J an
uary /, 1864, and that On the 18th day of
June, 1867, he took the oath under the act of
Congress referred to above.
1t is argued by the counsel for Mr.. Downey,
first, that the words share not Jeem'' convey an
| entirely different meaning FROM what would be
| expressed by the words haze aever been, and
that share not beee'' refers to the present and
not to the past, and consequently in consider
ing the clause in the Alexandria Constitution
we should not determine whether Mr.. Doyney
had been disfranchised al some past time, but
confine ourselves solely to the question, Wheth-
er he is now DISTINGUISHED under that constitu-
ton ? On this point [ am Of opinion that
''hare moi been d;sJraachiseG' in the oath under
the reconstruction act refers to time past
1t is further argued that Mr.. Downey is not
charged with knowingly and wilfully taking a
false oath, and that it is not even pretended
that he committed wilful wrong. 1t is clear
| that when swearing to a fact it is necessary to
constitute perjury ;hat the person swearing
should know that what he swears to is false at
the time he swcars, or at least that he has not
good grounds for believing at the time what he
swears to. But there is a distinction be-
tween ordinary facts and legal facts in this
that every one is presumed to know the law
and cannot pie ID ignorance as an excuse The
rule that ignorance Of the law is 10 excuse
operates harshly in many cases. The law may
be OF difficult Interpretation. Julists mary diff
fer as 10 lis meaning. 1t is certainly very hard
In such cases to presume that plain citizen
should know the law, when in point Of fact the
wisest and most learned in the profession do
not know it. But | am not aware that even
in cases ofihis kind the rule has ever been re-
Taxed. Whether it should be relaxed in the
present case is, as it seems to me, not within
my province to determine. Acting as a COM
missioner, | am only to inquire whether there
is probable cause to believe that the accused
is guilty Of the offence he is charged with, and
If there be such probable cause to believe that
he is techcally guilty Of the offence, it does not
rest with me to say that he is morally guilt
less, and therefore should be discharged.
am of opinion that, applying the rule that
ignorance Of the law does not excuse, the ac-
! cused has sworn that to be true which the law
says is not true, and that he ought to be sent
on for trial.
Mr.. Downey was accordingly sent on to APP
pear before the Circuit Court of the United
States at lis November term, upon his own re-
cognizance .-Richmond Dispatch.