Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-01-24
THE TEST-OaTH CASES.
CUMNIINs VS.. THE STATE OF MISSOURI
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

CUMNIINs VS.. THE STATE OF MISSOURI
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
In the Supreme Court of the United
States on Monday, Associate Justice Field
said he had been instructed to deliver the
opinion in the case of John A. Cummins
plaintiff in error, against the State OF Mis-
souri,, involving the constitutionality Of the
testoath of that State. The plaintiff wa:
Roman Catholic priest and convicted by
the courts for advising and preaching with
out having first taken the required oath
oath, and sentenced to pay a fine of five
hundred dollars, and committed to Jail till
paid. On appeal from the Circuit Court
the Supreme Court of the State affirmed
the Judgment. The following is a mere
outline of the opinion The oath, by the
Constitution of that State, imposes more
than thirty distinct affirmations and tests.
Some of them constitute offences of the
highest grade, to which the heaviest penal
ties are attached some of them are not
recognized by statute, while others are not
blameworthy. They require him not only
to swear that he was not only not in hostili-
ty to the United States, but that he never
manifested adherence to the cause of the
enemy or desired triumph over the arms
pressed sympathy for the rebels. or ever
sought to promote the ends of those en-
gagged in war against the United States au-
thorties, or ever left the State to escape
enrolment or the performance Of military
duty, OF ever expressed his dissatisfaction
with the Government. Every person una
BILE to take this oath was declared incapa-
bic of holding offices of trust, honor or
emolument, or of acting as a trustee or
manager Of any corporation now Or hereaf-
ter to be established, or from teaching in
all educational institution, or holding real
estate for such religious society or congre-
cation, &c. And every person holding any
such office at the time the Constitution
went into effect was required to take the
oath. In default Of taking the oath his
office becomes vacant. No attorney at the
bar, priest or preacher of any doctrine
or order, is permitted to teach OF solemnize
marriage without taking the oath. False
swearing is made punishable 10y imprison-
mems i'll the penitentiary.
This oath is without any precedent III
this country which the court could discov-
er. 1t is first, retroactive, and if taken
years hence would cover the intervening
period. In other countries test-oaths were
limited to the present, and were not adj
ministered i'll particular instances of past
misconduct Secondly, the oath is not
only directed against individuals who OPP
posed the acts of the Government, but de-
nounces their desires and kympathies. It
makes no distinction between acts arising
from malignity and acts springing from af-
lection. If any one ever expressed sympa-
thy for the rebellion, even if he were con-
nected by the closest ties Of blood, he is de-
clarcd unable to subscribe to the oath, and
is dcbarred froin tie employments specified
The court admitted the proposition of the
learned counsel of Missouri that the States
possessed all the attributes of sovereignty,
and among the rights reserved to the States
was the power to determine the qualifica-
tiOns for office, and the conditions on which
citizens may exercise their calhngs and
pursuits within its Jurisdiction. But it by
no means follows that the State can infict
punishment for acts which were not pun
ishable when committed.
1t was evident from the nature of the pur-
suits and professions of the parties placed
under disability by the constitution of Mis-
souri, that their acts had no possible rela-
ton to their fitness for their pursuits and
professions. There was no connection be-
tween the allegation that Cummins left the
State to avoid the draft and the administra-
ton Of the sacraments of his church nor
can fact of that kind, or words of sympa-
thy for those III rebellion, show the unfit
ness of lawyers, Or professors, OF teachers,
Or their want of ability in acting as mana
gers OF trustees of corporations. It was
manifest on the simple statement of their
acts that there was no relation. The oath
could not be applied as to whether the par
ties were qualified or not. The oath was
intended to reach persons, not their cal
ling not because their acts untitled them
for their calling. but because it was thought
their acts were deserving of punishment.
and In no way but by depriving them of
citizenship.
The court did not agree that less than
the deprivation of life, liberty, and pro-
perty was no punishment at all A dis
qualification from holding office, as all i'm
parchment, may be punishment Also
the preventing attorneys practising in the
Federal courts. BY the statute g and 1O)
OF William Third any person speaking
against the Christian religion, or speaking
or writing against the Divine Spirit, was
| liable for the first offence to be rendered
| incapable of holding offices of trust or pro-
tit, and for the second to be sent to prison.
Statute, 2, George Third, for contempt
against the Kings authority took away the
right to receive any legacy, deed, or gift,
! or vote at elections for Parliament. with O.
penalty of five hundred pounds. Black
stone says the loss of liberty consists in the
loss of lands or profits of lands for life, and
| disabilities from holding offices of honor or
| emolument. Among the Romans the loss
OF liberty was disability of all the privi-
leges OF members of the family, or citizen
| ship in France, deprivation of civil rights
and of eligibility for office, or of being
guardian or trustee, or being employed in
schools or seminaries of learning. The
! theory on which our institutions rest is that
all men have certain inalienable rights,