The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-11-19

what had been admitted. He thought that
the respondent had not only admitted the
identity, but that Judge Shefey had taken
the oath to support the Constitution of the
United States, and afterwards engaged in
rebellion.
The Court sustained the view advanced
by Mr.. Neeson in regard to the respond
snt's admissions.
Mr.. Neeson desired to know exactly what
evidence the petitioners counsel had intro
duced. IT, w
Mr.. Bundy submitted the Journal Of the
House of Delegates for ] 849150 and ls6l-62
the ordinance of secession !; On ordinance
1907 substituting Confederate States y
for the United states"; an ordinance
mo. 56) adopting the Constitution OF the
Confederate States the admission of Judge
Shefey's identity and the proclamation OF
the Secretary Of State declaring the four
teenth article of the Constitution of the
United States adopted also the House
Journal of April, 1862, to show that Judge
Sheffey voted as speaker for appropria-
tions to carry on the war, and in support OF
measures for the defence of Richmond
against the United States forces.
Mr.. Chandler stated that it might be
thought proper hereafter to show other
acts Of disloyalty on the part Of Judge
SheTey, and possibly further proof might
be adduced Of the fact that Judge Sheffey
took the oath Of allegiance to the United
States Government in 1849. With these
exceptions, the case was all in. Of course
his Honor would take notice of the habeaS
corpus act.
Mr.. Neeson did not object to further proof
in regard to the taking Of the oath in l849,
but insisted that the specifications of acts Of
rebellion should be made before the argu-
ment was commenced.
After delay of more than an hour, Mr..
Shelton G. Davis, formerly clerk Of the
Virginia State Senate, was introduced by
counsel for the petitioner. He testified that
it was the custom in the Senate to admins
ter the oath to support the Constitution Of
the United States in accordance with the
requirements of the Code. The oath was
taken verbally before a justice of the peace,
or the clerk or the president of the Senate.
When a senator qualified in open Senate it
was stated on the record, and when he
qualified elsewhere, the certificate was filed
and made matter of record. Witness did
not know anything about the custom in the
House, but thought it was the same. After
the secession of the State the senators were
required in the same manner to swear to
support the Constitution of the nfederdte
States. His experience extended back to
1858. Did not know what was the custom
anterior to that time. Thought it likely
that it was the same. Whether the certif-
Gates of qualification of members Of the
Assembly in 1S49-'5O could now be found
he could not gay, but thought they might.
The evidence for the petitioner being
closed, Mr.. Neeson wished to know whether
it was admitted that Hugh W. Sheffey re-
ceived commission as Judge Of the tenth
circuit of Virginia in February, 1866, from
Governor Peirpoint, and has acted as Judge
since that time, and was acting as Judge OF
the Circuit Court of Rockbridge in Septem-
Der, 1868.
Mr.. Chandler was willing to admit only
that he had claimed to act as Judge under
the authority of that commission. Whether
he was Judge prior to the 28th Of July,
when the fourteenth article became law,
the counsel for the petitioner would express
NO opinion.
The counsel finally agreed upon the
phrase "has since his commission il
February, 1866, acted as such Judge" Il
was also admitted that the sheriff Of Rock
bridge is the respondent in the case.
MIR. Bundy then proceeded to open the
case. The primary object of this proceed
ing was the release of Caesar P. Griffin from
unlawful confinement. 1t was impossible
however, to shut our eyes to the ulteriol
consequences that must follow from his re-
lease. In order to procure that release il
was necessary to show the constitutions
disability OF Hugh W. Shetfey to act as 6
Judge under the fourteenth article of the
Constitution of the United States, and thai
since July %, 1868, he has not been Judge
of the State Of Virginia. This had beer
proved by the documentary evidence intro
duced by the petitioner. He relied upor
the act of Congress passed February 5
1867, to establish the power Of the court t
act in this proceeding. He then gave {
short history of the acts of Congress touch
ing the writ of ha5eas corpus from 1875 t.
1867, by which the powers of the Judiciary
had been gradually enlarged.
Laying down the rule Of Blackstone
that we must consider, in constru
ing law, the motives of the le
gislators, and the surrounding circum
stances, he showed the application of tina
rule to the act under which this proceedin!
is brought. 1t was one of the series o
reconstruction acts" made necessary, it i
well known, by the overthrow of the Go
vernments existing III certain parts of tn
Union. These acts brought in conflict tn
just authority of the general government
and the remains of the overthrown Stat
governments. If the Constitution Of tn
United States was the law Of Virginia, MIR
Sheffey was not Judge and that that Con
stitution is the law Of the State has beel
established by the force Of arms.
at 8 o'clock Mr.. Buidy concluded, en-
the court adjourned until this morning a
10 O'Clock.
Mir. Bowden will speak to-day, and vii
be followed by either Mr.. Chandler or Nj
Bundy.
REJ Icrorc c-Tha Row O. g. Pearson r