The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-03-04
The nInd,.,an Case.

NAV De bdllSldN INSONSAASN'
The nindmRn Case.
The Infeiiigencer of yesterday appolo-
giLes at some length for the impeach-
ment OF Judge HINDMAN. We are glad
10 zee that It recognizes the necessity
for allaying popular disgust with that
Indecent proceeding. The fact that his
impeachi.ent is admitted to need ex-
planation and defence shows soften
inc of the Radical cuticle which will
greatly encourage the people in laying
on the lash.
We a.e informed by the iRteiHseHcer
that the Supreme Court of the United
States has not decided the Lawyers
Test Oath invalid. If that paper means
I. say that the Court III question has
NOT given decision, which invalidates
this Test Oath aud all others OF like
character, it deserves pity for Its ignor-
ance, or contempt for its prevarication.
On the other hand, if it sets up rs an
argument that no special decision of
any particular case arising under the
laws of West Virginia has been render
ed by the Supreme Court, it is resOrting
to puerile subterfuge which We shall
not dignity 10y special consideration.
As our mcighbor has evidently not con-
sidercs an acquaintance with the truth,
in regard to what the Supreme Court
has decided, essential to his argument,
We beg to supply his manifest detcien-
cirs with one or two pertinent facts.
Two cases involving the validity of
Test Oaths, similar in character and,
in one instance, almost exact in sub
stance with the West Virginia Test
Oath for lawyers, have been decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States. One of these. arising under the
laws of Congress prescribing Test
for lawyers almost identical with that
required by West Virginia. was the case
Of A. II. GARLAND, who applied to prac-
tice in the Supreme Court without TAX
ing said Oath. The other was the case
OF CUMMINGS, a Catholic Priest, and
arose under Test Oath clause of the
Constitution of Missouri. In both
these eases the decision was adverse to
the validity of the Test Oath. We eX-
tract the following from the decision i'll
the GARLAND case.
".iU enactmeHts Of this kind, par
take of the nature of bills of pains and
penalties, aud are subject to the consti-
tutIonal inhibition against the passage
of bills of attainder, under which gem
eral designation they are included. In
the exclusion which the statute ad-
Judges, it imposes a punishment for
some of the acts specified which were
not punishable, or may not have been
punishable at the time they were com
mltted; and for all the acts, it adds
new punishment to that then prescribed,
and 1t is thus brought within the fur
ther inhibition of the Constitution
against the passage of an er post Jdcto
law. In the case of Cummings rs. the
State of Missouri, just decided, we had
occasion To consider at length the mean
ing of a bW0G attdinder and an er pos!
tGctO law in the clause of the Constitu-
tlon forbiddiHg their passage by the
States, and it is unnecessary to repeat
here what We then said; like prohibi-
ton IS contained in the Constitution
against enactments Of this kind by Con-
gress, and the argument presented In
that case against certain clauses OF the
Constitution of Missouri, is equally APP
plicaOle to the act of Congress, under
consideration in this case"
We submit that the first sentence in
the above extract is sufficiently CON-
ptehensive to reach even an "enact-
ment" Of the West Virginia Legisla-
tnre. We beg the IHtelligeHceT to ex'
plain wherein the decision fails to
touch the case in point, and how its ed
itor satisfies himself that "the Supreme
Court has not therefore decided our
statute unconstitutional" We would
Ike him to tell his readers in what lam
guage the Court could have declared
our Lawyers Test Oath unconstitu-
tional, if it did not SO declare when it
said of the Lawyers Test Oath pre-
scribed by Congress, almost the same in
words with the West Virginia Oath, "GlI
sRactmeRts Of! this kind partake of the nature
Of bilsOf pains and penalties aud are sub
Jeet TO the Constitutional inhibition against
the passage of bills Of attainder, under
~hich general designation they Gse in
ciaded."
The IatelIigencer's reference to Judge
HINDMAN's inability to appear upon the
day of his trial is about on par with
the indecency of the Radical majority
IN rushing the trial through in his alb,
sence. The statements that Judge
HINDMAN was absent by reason of ar.
arrangement, that "he did not want to
appear, and did not mean to defend
himself" are utterly false. We