The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-03-06

\ have confounded the two, TO the infinite
discontinue of such as might attempt
to wade through his muddle.
! The GARLAND case arose under the
law of Congre IS, passed January "a, 1865
requiring Attorneys to take, before be.
ing admitted to practice in the United
States Courts, the oat prescribed in the
act of July I'd, 1862. That oath is as
follows:
|, A. B., do solemly swear (or affirm)
that / have never voluntarily borne
arms against the United States since
/ have been q citizen thereof; that have
never sought nor accepted, nor attempt,
ed to exercise the functions off any office
whatever, under any authority or pre-
tended authority in hostility to the
United States; that have not yielded a
voluntary support to any pretended
government, authority, power, or COZ
stitution within the United States, hos
tile or iniuIical thereto. And do fur
ther swear (or aflirm) that, to the best
of my knowledge and ability, l will
support and defend the Constitution OF
the United States against any and all
enemies, foreign and domestic; hat
will bear true faith and allegiance to the
same; that l take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation OF
purpose of evasion, and that | will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which am about to enter.
So help me God.
The MILLER case, arose under the act
of the Legislature of Vest Virginia,
passed February IA, 1866. That act
reads rs follows:
mo attorney at law shall be allowed
to practice in any court, or before any
justice or board Of Supervisors, of this
State, after the passage of this act, un-
til he shall take, in the court in which
he proposes to practice, i'll addition TO
the Oaths now required by law, the fol-
lowing oath;
/ ca. b. do solemnly swear that |
haze not, since the twentieth day OF
June, eighteen hundred and sixty-threc,
borne arms against the United States,
nor against the State Of West Virginia;
that have voluntarily given no aid or
comfort to persons engaged Ill armed
hostility thereto, by countenancing,
cOunsclling or encouraging them
in the same; that have not
sought, accepted nor attempted to
exercise the functions of any
office whatever under any authority i'll
hostility to the United States or the
State of West Virginia; that / have
not yielded voluntary support to any
pretended government, authority, pow
er or constitution. hostile or iuimical
thereto; and that l take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion.
OF the first of these, and not of "the
Missouri statute" sc-called by our
oblivious cotemporary, the Supreme
Court in deciding the GARLAND case
said:
an eRdcimeRtS of this kind partake of
the nature of bills of pains and penal
ties, and are subject to the constitu-
tiOnal inhibition against the passage of
bills of attainder, under which gcner-
al designation they are included"
We submit the question to any man
Of common sense; we will even so fur
ther, aud aSk the editor of the Mtelli-
gencer; if the above beltrue of the Con-
grcssional oath, is it not also true ofthe
West Virginia oathi Is not the latter
oath enc of the "enaefments of this
kind" referred TO by the Court! And
if it is not, wherein does the difference
consist? In what respect is this GAR
LAND case, or as our neighbor face
tiously calls it, "the Missouri case"
WHOLLY different from oursi"
1t was for acknowledging that these
cases were identical in principle that
Judge HINDMAN was impeached. The
nteLigeRcer claims that they are differ
ent, and makes tacit admission t&at
if they are not different, HINDMAN's de
cision, for which he was displaced, was
neither an error nor an offence. The
public will compare the cases, and 1T
may be the MtelligeRcer can enable it to
discriminate between them.
The claim of the InteIligencer that
PRICES supposed failure to get his case
before the Supreme Court, settled the
constitutionality of the Test Oath, is
Just what might have been expected
from the author of the woful blundcrs
we have exposed. A man without
knowledge enough to comprehend a fact
could hardly have brains enough to
compass q correct conclusion. We
renew our call for the proof of the state
ment that the Supreme Court rejected
PRICES application. Wemake this call
upon the authority of the printed re-
port of the Courts proceedings. which
show no such rejection. If the fact is
"of such notoriety" it ought to be ca
pable of proof. Give us something
more reliable than the echo with which
you favored US on yesterday.
We have spoken Thus at length, for
the double purpose of furnishing the
public and the Intslligencr with some
pertinent facts connected with the Test
Oath decisions of the Supreme Court.
Our contemporary evidently knows
nothing in the matter and we would
rather post him ourselves than argue
against hopeless stupidity.
Buster and buncombe may con-
ceal for time, the dullness
ofssthe dance, but in the end our
neishbor will find it no disadvant-
age to ''know whereof hespeaks, " to the
extent at least of avoiding snch ridicu-
lous nonsense as that to which he
has recently given vent. If he don't
know any better, of course We freely
forgive him, but it may be question
whether a little drilling in what Mr..
COpHAGUs called the "rudimansp would
not save the public some patience and
himself some modification. ssr
The Comm issioacr OF Immigration
In the House on Wednesday, upon the