Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-01-19
q, .n.l NUMBERTl73.,rA
COLUMBUS, SATURDAY %
.TINUT ITTT2 JTTI910N1f

'llkA BI ulAA6 VlEHJVINU
think have now shown that the statute
in question is within the, legislative power
Of, Congress ~ ibssooptrplIqyeD the GNHlS
and their officers, and that IL Isl pot void rs
F%ete Ses@i aw S1tssf D1li aa ES 5 f. Postf Sf
qualification AdTpuaishmeHtsth discuss
sion disposeslslsoJ 81 ,ttEe proposition that
the pardon ofzthes REesident, relieves the
party aefeRtang ik0fi the Neeassi sitB q taking
the oath even IL the law be valid. / am
willing to cohcede that ii ieII Presidential
pardon relieves thep y party hA ffof Rii pefaities,
or, in other wordsy tfEom llail the punish
ment which thelaNH ibdiets fo2 lIig 1lfgnse.
but 1t relieves him from nothipg, more. If
thel lsoa4hl reapiTed yas q IeeRdi iqR fQ. pFaGn
tlclng law Is not a punishment, as THINK
have lshgwn ~ isinct tIteh the pardon of
the Pfesideht las no erect m ftii6tiIg Aim
fromstheTequirement 10 take INivi1o
qualification which Congress had a right to
prescribe as necessary 10 an attorney,
then1the lRresld5hte daIinotJ tyI IpaEdonIs6r
otherwisel dispensewlthth the law regulating,
plain rule, as betSGei2S tRe TekiliS2a
tive and Executive Departments of
the Government, but It II the declaration
Of common sense. 9The man wholly couh-
terfeiting by theft or db6muraers7 bya
treason,Iis rendered unfit 70 exercise the,
iunGtions Of An attorney, or a counselor at
law, may be Saved by the Executive pardon
from the Penltentiafyeorgt the gallows, butt
Is not thereby restored to the qualifications,
which are essential t0-admissiOnt the bar.
No doubtitI would be found that yeFysmany
persons among those who cannot take this
oath deserve TO be relieved, ,fromo the pro-
hibition of the law. But this In no wise
depends'upoA the aetDbf the Pfesidehttih
giving prrefqsing q pardon ItremainstO
the legislative power alone to prescribe
under what circumstances this relief shall
be extended WOns beta 13diRqw dtog
In regard eto,theiease Of Cummings q. The,s
state OF Missouri, allusions'have been made
In argument TO the sauctity of the Amints-
teriai office, and to heIinYiOlabilityfOtiFg-
ligious freedom in this country; but,no5 at.
tempt has been made to show that the Con-
stitution of the United oStates intefp0ses
any suchprotectionh hetWeentbe State G0Y-i
ernments and their own citizens, nor can
anything of the kind be shown. The Fed
eral Constitution contains'but two prOvfs-
ions on thisjsubject. One lOf those iforbids.
Congress to make any law respecting tue.
establishment of religion prohibiting Che
free exercise thereof11 Uhc ptheriis thatilO
religious test shall ever be required "a a,
quallhcation to any Office, OF public trust.
under the United States No restraint 49,
placed in thati1strument on theacCionl of
the States, Bgt on the contrary, in the lanz,
Pulge Of Story, [COmmeptaries on the Con-
stitution, section ], 1878 ] the whole power
overthe subjectof religion is left exdIusiVe-
ly to the State eGoYernments to lie acted uppn
according to their own sense of Justice and
the State CONSTITUTIONS. If there eVefa wasI
a case calling for this Court TO exercise,all
the power on this subject which appropri-. =.