Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-01-19

1 lnngn CAMEO
nainf With Z Ivieyy tn Amendment. I'd
GhasteHg7lkndH H is III tbis 1oose sense ithat,
tho worfl a nsed cht, the C,onrty n a avnonyr.
nous with ehastisement, correction. Loss,
or SUFFERING TO the marty slIpposed to Be
PUNISHED afltl tYotiiu9he 1pral sense, WificIf
sISniflhs teoAltv inflicthd fbf'lthe commlsLi
sion of IN crime. so inethis sense it is,said
that whereas. persons who have been guilty
Of the offenses mentioned in the oath were.
bvi the N US then In, force ofllV fable to be
panfsbed with death and eonfscationl of All
their propertV! thew are. by n law, passed
since these oifenses were .committed. made
liable To the enornIo1s additional punish
entofbeinof denrfved 5f tbe rikhttoTjratL
tice law. Thelawiihuuestioh does tiotif,
reality depriye a person guilty. of the acts
therein mentioned of any right which he
possessed before, for it Is really sound law,
as it is the dictate of good sense, that a
person. who. irttho language ofItheiact, las
Voluntarily borne arms against, the Cow
ernment Of the United States while citi-
zen thereof, and Who has voluntarily given
aid, com fort. counsel or enc0uraeenent TO
persons engagedo in armed hostility to the
Government. has. by doing those things,
forfeited his right to appear IN her Courts
and take part in the administration of her!
laws. Such a person has exhibited trait
of character which, without the aid of the
law in question, authorizes the Court to
declare him unfit to practice before it, and
to- strike his name from the roll of its
ATTORNEYS, If it be found there. Ihave al
ready shown that this act provides for no
Indictment or other charge, that it con-
TEMPLATES and admits of no trial. and L now
proceed to show that even if the right of
the Court to prevent an attorney guilty of
the actions mentioned from appearing in
lis forum depended upon the statute, still
1t tinflicts no punishment in thedegal sense
of the term. Punishment says NJ. Whar-.
ton in his Law Lexicon, is a penalty for
transgression of the law, and this is per-
haps as comprehensive and at the same
time as accurate a dehnitionIas can be,
given. Now, what law is 10 whose trans
gression is punished in the case before us!
None Is referred to IN the act, and there Is
nothing on its face to show that 1t was in
tendedas an additional punishment for any
oliense described in any other act; a part
of the matters OF which the applicant Is
required to purge himself on oath may
amount toitreason, and surely there could
be no intention Or desire to inflict this
small additional punishment Tor crime
whose penalty was already death and con-
punishment is used by the Court in sense
which would make great number OF laws,
partaking in no sense OF acrimlnal charac-
ter, laws for punishment and therefore er
post fdcto. A law, Tor Instance, which in
creases the facility for detecting frauds by
compelling party, 10 a CIVIL proceeding
to disclose, his transaction under oath,
would resdlt in his punishment in this
sense If it compelled him to pay an honest
debt which could not be coerced rom him
before. .Bnt this law comes clearly within
the class described byIthis Court in Watson
b. Mercer as a civil proceeding which afr
fects private rights retrospectiyely. 49,.
Again, let us suppose that Several per-
sons inflicted with a form of insanity here
tofore deemed harmless, shall be found all
at once to be dangerous to,the lives of per-
sons with whom they associate, The State
therefore passes a law that all persons so
affected shall be kept in close confinement
until their recovery is assured. Here is a
caseot punishment in the sense used by
tue Court, for a matter existing before the
passage Of the law. Is it an et post tdcto
law ?3A And ii not, in what does 1t DIFFER
from one Just in the sameT manner that
the act of Congress does, namely, that the
proceeding is a civil and not q criminal
proceeding, and Chat the Imprisonment in
the- one case anu Clle prouiplGloh 70 practlee
law IN bhe otner are not pulhsnLHehts ~ the
iegal meaning OF tha' Term. Inc CIVIL law
maxim AK IN enc ag0es Ots 0e6qIs pro 5aane es
edoen cqtSan', Has, Iong slllce Deeli auoPteu
civ apJ criminal % proceedIa o
the amendments Oh Sne CONSTITUTION moor
porates THIS principe thaC instrument
80 lar as punishment aneets HE or limp
lt results from tnls rue tsag ,nofnan can pe
Twice laWiully PuhlShle9l PISllsl, aH tor Gng same
o1ense. we nave aIreauy seen that Cie
acts oil wmch Ghe party Is required 10 purge;
hlnlseiL on oasn eeAssslypIe slls crime oh treaT
som NOW, II tne JuuglnelIo OF ghe CollrF, IN N
the case before us; instead OF permitting par
ties TO appear wlthout taxing Gne oath,had
been the other way, mere would nave been
the case OF person VINO, on the reasoning
OF the majority, is puhlsheu Dy the Judg-
ment OF TINS Courg Tor tne same acts winch
constitute tue crime OF treason, ana yet II
the Applicant here should beaiterward in
dieted for treason, on account 81 those same
acts. no one wonld pretend that the pro;
ceedlnSs mere couid DC esuccesstuiiy pieaued
IN par OF ChaG lnulcImeht.al buV Why not /?
Simply Deeanse'tneie rs mere hettpeg1 itrlal
nor punishment wlthlh the legal meaning
oil THESE terms. "a IA, ,,rs.,,,f - si.s,i.i4 .4.,,
We maintain that the purpose Of the act
of Congress was to REQUIRE loyalty as a
qualification OF all who practicelaw in the
National Courts. The majority say thatthe
purpose was to impose,punishment for past
acts of disloyalty. In pressing, this argu-.
meIlt it Is asserted by tie majority that no
requirement can be 5ustly Said to be a quail
ihcaton which Is not attainablei by yirall.
And that to demandia qualification not at
tainable by.allcisa punishment, ., The Con-
stltutlon of the United States proyides as 9
qualification for the 0lfice OF President and