The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-01-31
That Copperh cad Conspiracy.

copperheah conspiracy. He evidenti!
has an exalted opinion Of his own i'm
portance, and would produce similar
impression upon the minds of others by
showing that the authorities OF Ken
lucky, from the Governor down, the
Grand Jury OF Boyd county, and the
butternut citizens of Catlettsburg gen
erally hold him in such dread that they
formed a deep laid and wide spreading
Mot for his removal. Without question
ing the vcracity of a gentleman whose
reputation is so well-Settled as his, we beg
tohazard doubt of the correctness of his
theory. The facts show that in the fall
of 1855. he professed to be in sympathy
with the very men who he claims were
then prosecuting HIM for political rea-
sons. In that campaign he ran against
Colonel WIrCHER, of Cabell county, the
Republican candidate for tie House of
Delegates, and, as we understand, sought
and received the support of the Con-
servative men of that region. To what
extent his prosecution was prompted by
political considerations will appear from
the following extracts from his letter to
the Point Pleasant Register of septem-
her. l-5. in which he fully endorsed
the coppcrhead doctrine OF the uncon-
s.itutiunality of the test oath for voters
From the Point Pleasant Registerl
MIR. EpIroR:-The angry controversy
Going on in regard to the act OF the
legislature of last winter, relating to
ncrsons engaged in rebellion, and the
irroucnt use'of my own name III con-
nertion Herewith, has induced me to
ask place in your paper for this COM
mnnication. The main subjects of con-
troyerSv are the law requiring person
Offering To vote, in case he is challenged,
"a take the oath therein prescribed be-
t,r. he is allowed to do SO, and the pro-
noSed Constitutional Amendment, both
of which il is claired are unconstitu-
tional. The objections thus raised have
caused me, since my return home, 10
examine the questions with that care
and attention which | was unable to
bcstow upon them i'll the hurry and
hustle of a very short session, ana the
result of the examination l now pro-
crrd To give.
After setting forth at length 1.-THE
provisions of the Constitution bearing
upon the right to vote" Mr.. FURGUsoN
refer, to the test oath bill as follows:
Having voted for the act requiring
This oath. il is rather unpleasant to
acknowledge that il is an act no! IN dc-
cor,yauce with the Consultation, but the
examination have since bestowed npon
th. subject has satisfied me that such is
the feet. and therefore have no hesita-
ZION Ia say So. The law of February
81, l~,i3." Tan eXpatriation act
which he thought might he val
id) applies only 10 otfenscs com.
mirtrl after its passage, but the law ot
las: winter (Sce Acts of 1865. page 40
requires the person Offering to vote to
swear. il challenged, that he nerer
committed any of the acts there
in enumerated. There are doubt
less MANY persons in the State
who. prior TO the act of 1863, gave
aid and comfort to the rebellion i'll some
of the methods prescribed III that act,
bur who, previous to its passage, had
retnrncd TO their allegiance and become
peaceablc and aw-abiding citizens.
Now. thess persons, # otherrise qualified,
,rogld clearly hare the right, under the Con-
stitafion, TO rote, and yet they could not
take the oath prescribed by the act OF
l-ti5. And then, again, it may be that
many persons cxpatriated by the act OF
1858, have returned to their allegiance
and rcgaincd their citizenship, and,
if so. ibey would be entitled, under
the Consultation 10 rOte, but could not do
so if challenged, because they could not
take the prescribed oath. For this rea'
son, am free to say, that the oath IN
question is too broad in its terms, and that
it requires the person offering to vote
if challenged. 10 s,redr TO more than u
authorised by the Consultation. Had the
oath been so framed rs to carry out the
object and intention Of the Legislature
IT'S enforcement would have been no vi
,iation of the Constitution; but, unfor
tunately, this is not the case, aud
therefore recommend 10 my Union friend
rreryrhcre, that zee treat the lac requiring
this oath az a dead letter, and not seeh Il
enforce it upon any one.
my only object in referring to th'
matter Mt all is to excuse myself, to SOM
extent, for not having looked more care
fully into the matter before voting 70
the bill. would not have INTRODUCES
so grave matter without having ex
amined it in all its bearings, but havin
the matter first brought to my atten
tion by gentleman of age and experl
eucc, and being so pressed with othe
business at the time, / did not bestoy
upon the subject the consideration 1t
imncrtance demands. Had | have don
so, would have disc"verYd then. a
now, that the oath required by the ac
tras not oaly unconstitutional bnt uaneees
sary 10 accomplish the object ,re had II
rier."
OF the Constitutional amendment
Mr.. Furruson remarked that it was Z"
matter for great consideration whethe
or not it is good policy to insist upo
the amendment in its present form. A
il now stands it disfranchises all pei
sons, for all time, who, since the hrs
day of June. 1861, have given volur
tary aid to the rebellion. The high an
the low, the intelligent and the lgn!o,i
ant, the leaders and the led, are ahk
forever stricken down by it; saving oni
such as have volunteered into the mn
tary or naval service of the Unite
States. and have been or shall be hor
orably discharged therefrom.'
After stating his belief that the be'
ter way for settling this and all othe
questions growing out of the wa
would be through a Cons titution'
convention, he concludes with the TO
lowing appeal, which, from the fac
that it refers with approval to th
teachings of the Saviour, may ver
properly be deemed the most copper
part oS his whole letter.
"And now in conclusion, may / M
appeal to every one, without distinctio
nf mama marty IN consider well I'll