Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1867-07-01
Commissioners recision III tho Downey Regis
tratinn Casa

sioner Chahoon gave the following opinion in
the case ofthe United States rs. Mark Downey,
charged with perjury in taking !lIe registration
oath
The Alexandra Constitution provides hat
no person shall be allowed TO vote without hrst
taking an oath that lie has not given aid and
comfort 10 the rebellion since January /, l864
and prascribes means by which this dlstran
chisement may be removed. 1t Is not necessary
for me to decide whether this Acknowledgements
has ever been legally removed or not. J. have
only to determine whether ii ever legally exist
ed. Upon this | think there can be no doubt,
for the constitution adopted Al Alexandra Is
now the recognized constitution OF Virginia,
and the persons dstranchi5ed by that constltu-
ton we're in fact prohibited from voting until
the Legislature was called together and the
diSiranchiSement removed. The reconStuc.
ton act of Congress provides that no one shall
be registered az voter Without previously
taking an oath, part Of which is in the to!-
lowing language to Wit II have not been
disranchised for participation in the rebellion,
&C. The evidence in this case shows that Mr..
Downey participated in The rebellion alter
January |, 1861, aud that on the 18th day Of
June, 1867, i,e took the oath under the act Of
Congress referred to above,
1t is argued by the counsel for Mr. Downey
first, that the words have NOT been convey
an entirely different meaning from what would
be expressed by the words have never been.
and that have not been refers to the present
and not to The past, and consequently in con
sdcring the clause in the Alexandra Coustltf
ton We should not determine whether Mr..
DoWuey had been DISTINGUISHED at some past
time but contine ourselves solely to the que5-
ton " Whether he is now diairanch&ed nnder
that constitution? On this point | am of
opinion that have not been DISTINGUISHED
In the oath under the reconstruction act refers
to time past.
It is further argued that Mr.. Downey is not
charged with knowingly and HlItully taking a
false oath, and that II is nos even pretended
that he committed Il wiliu Wong. Ii is clear
that when swearing t. fact it is necessary 10
constitute perjury that the person swearing
should know that what he sWcars to is false at
the time he swears, or at least that he has not
good grounds for believing at the time what
he swears to. But there is distinction be-
tween ordinary facts and legal facts in this,
that every one Is presumed to know the law,
and cannot plead ignorance as al excuse. The
rule that ignorance Of the law is 20 excuse
operates harshly in macy aases. The law may
be CT difficult Interpretation. Jurists may dt-
fer as to its meaning 1t is ccrtan ] very hard
in such cases to presume that plain citizen
should know the law, whcG in point Of fact the
wiseSt and most learned in the profession do
not know it. But am not aware that even
in cases Of this kind the rule has ever been
relaxed. Whether il should be relaxed in the
present case is, As il seems 10 me, not within
my province to determine. Acting as com
missioner, | am only to inquire whether there
is probable cause to believe that the accused is
guilty ofthe offence he is charged with. and
If there he such probable cause to believe that
he is technically guilty Of the offence, it does
not rest with NE TO say that he is morally
guiltess, 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 10 ap-
pear before the Circuit Court oi the United
States at lis November term, upon Biz own
recognizanca
The case OF Mark UoWney was decided yes,
terday BY Mr.. Chah00n az will be seen from
the report Of his decision in oilr local columns.
His decision Is, according 10 our NOTIONS, 50
plainly WrOuc, and made i'll such utter ignor-
ance Of both the facts aud the law Of the case.
that we shall not argue the points involved,
more especially as Mr. c.: office gives no
dignity or importance to his acla. His reasons
are really net worthy Of refntat.on. They do
not touch the real question at issue, which Is.
whether the voters oath has reference to any
other Acknowledgement than that effected b.
the constitutional anlendnenr
We trust that no one will fail to register iii
consequence Of this decision. 1t il q matter CT
no I'M ortance l-Richmoad Dispatch.
Tur Nrarr nr TILE PRraGnE vi 10 hnmArO.