The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1868-10-09
SHALL REBELS VOTES OFFSET THE
VOTES OF UNION MEN IN NEVADA?

/ loyalty which gained Nevada an en-
trance into the Union, the Constitution
of the State was so framed as to make
it in the power of the Legislature tC
disfranchise ouch of our inhabitants a:
had committed the overt act of treason
by bearing arms against the national
authorities. a Registry law was also
provided for by the trainers of that Con-
stitution. IN the session of the Legis.
lature held during the Winter of l664-j
a Registry law was passed and as an
incid ant of that law a provision was
enacted requiring an oath upon the part
Of the person Offering himself to register
his name as q voter, to the effect that
he had never borne arms against the
flag. The purpose of these enactments
was, the exclusion from the ballot box
Of the sworn enemies the government
aad, Notwithstanding the attempts N de
in the Legislatures of 1866 and 1867 to
have the Registry Act modified by the
repeal Of the said test oath, the repre-
sentatives CT the people said No, We
will let it stand"
Now, it has transpired that certain
" constitutional Democrats" have, as i 5
always their habit, set up as plea in
bar Of the oath alluded to, that it il
" unconstitutional" inasmuch as the
Article of the Constitution which JUS
tilted the original passage of the obi
cation sets forth in modification of the
declaration against persons who have
90 Voluntarily borne arms against The
United States, or held civil or military
Office under the so called Confederate
States" that they shall not vote " IN
less an amnesty be granted to such by
the FederGI G0rcrnmelt" The last per-
son who has attempted to geta decision
al ainst the validity of the existing oath
is one Colonel Davies of this city, man,
who, during almost the entire war, was
an officer in the rebel army-so declared
in his own complaint to the Supreme
Court 10 Which body he has applied for
a writ of n,andQn.Hs. to compel Mr.. JUS
tice Mckeeby to allow him to enter his
name as voter
We are not going to attempt " con-
stitutional argument against Colonel
Davies prayer for mandamus but we
propose as starter to our general de-
NAL of his right to vote and our own
views in sustainmeut of it, to assert that
be cannot, to save his life (much less
his vote show to the Supreme Court any
official copy of an amnesty to him from
6 The Federal Government" We doubt |
f he can show by official document that
lie has even been the subject of an am
lesty from Andrew Johnson, President
# the United States-who is only occu
wing a position which is part of the
Furthermore, we do not
'elieye that it can be successfully shown
hat il is Unconstitutional to require
ebel to take that cath, even if be has
cen amne5tied, 10y Act of Congress.
Fe believe that the words Of the Con
titn,ion, "unless an amnesty be grant
d" were inserted there to justify the
legislature in repeating, at such time as
sees proper, the oath, in its own dis
retion; and we have no idea that even
n unconditional and sweeping amnesty
IN invalidate that oath until it is re-
called That the Constitutional Con-
ention meant to vest this power in the :
legislature is fully indicated by the
urport Of the G h section of Article %
the Constitu ion. +
Anyhow-and now we speak as n
yal partizan-there are as strong ar 7
lments in favor of the sustainmeut of /
e oath-as many doubts in its favor I
against it. This is not to be denied '
,cept by those who believe that the $
,untry was made to depend fer its eX t.
tence upon the bubbles of the Consti- h
tion rather than that the Constitution n
10 60 fntv nd