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


Test Oath Decisions
In continuing its apology for the
HISpMAS impeachment the Intelligence
says:
The Missouri case, which the REGIS
TER cites with such confidence, was q
wholly different one from ours. The
Missouri statGte was different from ours
That prescribed penalties and punish
mcntS. such as fine and imprisonment
for these who preached or practiced law
without taking the test oath, and that
WAS WY the Court held the Missouri
statute partOOk of the nature of bill
of pains aud penalties and was subject
10 the Constitutional inhibition OF bills
of attaiuder. The statute of West Nir'
ginia prescribes no punishment. 1t Is
simply bar.
The above paragraph sets forth a pal
plble untruth, jumps at a silly conclu'
sion, and displays the grossest Ignorance
OIL the part of the author. In the first
place the Missouri ease did not arise
under "fhe Missouri statute, but under
the Missouri constitution. and if TIE
writer had known what he was talking
about, be would not hav. been guilty OF
the nonsense of mistaking COuStitn-
tional provision for legislative act.
In the next place the Court did not
decide the Missouri Test Oath for
preachers and lawyers unconstitutional
because of the penalties Of fine and
Imprisonment imposed upon such as
should cvade it, but because the law it.
self. without reference to the punish
ment it's violation entailed, was ball
of attainder and all er port .tdciO law.
Had the enactment itself been legal,
there could have been little question a'
to the legality Of the punishment in
llicted for violating it. hut being invalid
p,, 81 tie penalties for its violation
partook of its nature and we're likewise
invalid.
For the benefit of our contemporary
who, in the most charitable view of the
case, has other fallen victim to his
own ignorance or to the unfortunate
promptings of some partisan pettifog
ger, we sabjOin few extracts frem the
opinion of the United States Supreme
Court, in the case of JOHN A. CUM
MfNGS rs. THE STATE OF MISSOURI al
opinion we would advise our neighbol
to read before he writes about it again
In the first place the Court proposes tC
consider, pot 1.-THE prescribed penalties
and punishments such as fine and i'm
prisonment," but the Test Oath itself
1t says:
This case comes before us on writ Oi
error to the Supreme Court of Missouri
and involves 4 consideration of the tes
oath imposed by the Constitution of the
State.
The argument is then made upon the
oath itself, and not upon the punish,
ment for pursuing a profession without
taking it. Ofit the Court says:
In the first place it is retrospective
In the second place, the oath
is directed not merely against overt and
visible acts of hostility to the Govern.
ment, but is intended to reach words
desires aud sympathies also.
The oath could not, therefore have been
required as a means of ascertaining
whether parties were qualified or not
for their respective callings or the
trusts with which they are charged. II
was required to reach the person, not
the calling. 1t was exacted, not from
any notion that the acts designated in
dlcated unfitness for the calling, but
because the acts WerC thought 10 deseIrt
punishment, aud there was no tray to pun
ish the persons who had committed
them, but by depriving them of some
OF the rights and privileges of the cit
izen.
The disabilities created by the Con-
stitution of Missouri must be regarded
as penalties. They constitute punish
meut. a
Ii the clauses of the third article OF
the constitution of Missouri to which
we have referred, had in terms declared
Mr.. Cummings guilty OF having been in
armed hostility e the United States,
&c, theIe would be no question bu;
that the clauses would constitute bill
OF attainder within the meaning of the
FEDERAL Constitution. The
results which would follow from the
clauses mentioned do follow from the
Clauses aStuslly adopted.
The Court then proceeds to show that
The Constitutional provision debarrisg
from their professions such as cannot
take the oath, is an er post .fdctO law
out In no place does it argue against
The law because of the penalties annex
ed to its evasion. This fact our cotem
porary might have known had he taker
The trouble to read the decision befor,
lie undertook to discuss it. If after read
lug it be does not sicken of the silly
shallow, twaddling absurdity we hav
quoted from his article, his sensibilitie
are as dull as his ignorance is dark.
If our cotemporary's information ha,
been adapted to the occasion, he woul,
not have made another ridiculous blum
der to which we call his attention. H
would not have mistaken quotation
from the opinion in the GARLAND cas-