New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-02-02
THE TEST OATH.

col. MAGRrDERs CASE BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPREME
COURT
WAsnINGToN Feb 1.-The Supreme Court Of the
District Of Columbia is still engaged in hearing
arguments on the question whether the test oath re-
quircd for admission shall be set aside. Col
Mag1uder, who asks to be admitted without being
required to take the oath prescribed by law for at
tomeys in his argument to-day asked TO he restored
to his former privileges as a right, and spoke Of
his having been an officer Of the late Confed-
clate army, saying that whatever offences he had
committed as such had been pardoned by the EXecu-
tive, humbly submitting that he could be excluded
uny by a spirit of resentment which i'll becomes the
profession. The question arose whether in adopting
the rule the Court did not adopt rule in conflict
with the Constitution of the United States and the
laws al the land. lie WIS at q loss To know why
Law pronounced 10y the United States Supreme Court,
the highest tribunal in the land, null and void,
should be enforced here II so, il must be shown
that there h something intcrcepting the relations
with this Court When act has been decided
by the highest tribunal of the land to he nneonsitu
tiOna Is there any tribunal which will insist on II
Judge Wylc remarked that the question was
whether the Court had power To make rules for this
admission To the bar for this rule was being enforced
Is rule. and not as law. Mr.. Magrudcr answered
that the Court had uchpower provided that they did
not violate law Of the land and he argued that the
rule, being IN contmyentlon OF the law, must
be pronounced null and void. Chief-Justice Carter
said that the only question was whether the decision
came here mandatory or adyisatory. Mr.. Magruder
procredcd To argue that the rule now operates
sr post Cdcfo What did IL prove 7 Judge
Carter replied that il provides that they
shall not have given aid or comfort TO the
Rebellion Mr. lotion followed in opposition 10 the
motion, taking the ground that the Court had power
10 make its own rules, closing by Tcmarking that IT
was admitted that this was the pioneer case, Skin
msh from the Rebel lines aud large number were
awaiting the decision of the Court He had taken the
trouble To examine the record aud found the name
recorded To an oath that he would support the Con-
sttution of the United States and that he believed
in the Christian religion under date Dec IL, 1881.
cate that lac is of character, that treason and
perjury were the elements Of fair character.
Mr.. Alagudcr begged 10 explain, and denied
that he had been guilty OF either Of these offenses
lie was q citizen of Virginia, as also native, but
raised here lie left the District while Virginia
vet in the Union and went where his relations and
his property were. The State required his allegi
ancc, and had the power 10 coerce his allegiance. IL
was impossible then 20 know what to take place.
thies with the people of his section, and he de-
sired the triumph of his friends. He did not leave
the District for the purpose Of entering the Rebel
lion.
Mr. Cook followed in opposition TO the motion of
admission saving the decision of the Supreme Court
was not entitled 10 profound respect being n bare
majority of the Court struggling Herewith. Mr. Brad
ley remarked that, n citizen he could not sit and
hear the Supreme Court spoken of disrespectfuy.
There was rule of the Court Oh the. sub
ject and he asked that 10 be enforced.
Chief Justice Cartier did not understand that the
counsel speaking diaespectfully of that Court.
He was referring To the fact To show what degree OF
force should be given To the opinion. The debate
will be resumed tomorrow.