The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-03-09
Indre uindmnn,s C.sr.

The legal gentleman who wrote the
leading editorial III the iRtelIigencer OF
saturday, has cont"ived, by suppressing
apar rf the law bearing on the point
VI CONTROVERSY. to misstate the whole
case. This is one of 1.-The ordinary arts
of able advocates"
lie has told us, and we believe the
proposition TO he correct, that lit rs on
"a where question arises as to whether
the Constitution and laws of a State are
in conflict with the Constitution and
lawsu the United States, that the de-
ci,iou> cl the United States become par
amount aud supreme
We accept the principle. In rela tion
10 the West Virginia Test Oaths the
question theu arises, are thev in con-
hct with the Constitution and laws OF
the United Statcs;" and upon this
question the decisions of the Courts of
the United States are paramount and
supreme.
The Constitution of the United States
provides, in the tenth section of the
rirst article, that no State shall pass
any hill of attainder or er post tdctO law
The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided that such laws rs our Test
Oath laws are in effect bills of attainder
and cr post tdctO laws, and are there
fore in conflict with the Constitution of
the United States.
In the GARLAND case, the Court says /:
AS the oath prescribed cannot be
taken by these parties, the act, as
against them, operates as legislative
decree of perpetual exclusion. And ex-
cluSion from any of the professions or
any of the ordinary Lvocations OF life,
for past conduct, can be regarded in no
other light than as punishment for such
conduct. The eXaetiOn of the oath is
the mode provided for ascertaining the
parties upon whom the act is intended
TO operate; and instead of lessening,
increases its Objectionable character.
~ ,pGctmCats Of this kind pdrtGke OF the
nature of pans and penalties, and are sub
jtyi 10 tie constitutional inhibition against
Tie passage Of bills Of GttGiRdtr, under
'rhich general designation they ave included
In the exclusion which the statute
adindgeS, it imposes punishment for
some Of the acts specified which were
not punishable at the time they were
committed; and for others of the acts
i; adds new punishmenttO that be-
fore pre,cribed; and it is thus brought
rithin the further inhibition Of the Con-
'titUtion against the passage Of an er post
tGctO lar.'
As we have already shown in q former
article, the Test Oath which was under
the consideration of the Court in the
GARLAND case, is almost identical with
the West Virginia Test Oaths. 1t is
impossible to make any distinction be-
tween them. The principle of the deci-
sion is just as applicable to one case as
the other
1t is, however, true that the GARLAND
cas- arose under al act of Congress.
The Constitution of the United States,
(AIticle /, section 9, clause g. prohibits
Congress from passing bill of attainder
or er post .jactO law. 1t also prohibits
every State from passing bill of at
tainder or er post tacto law. The Conrt
held the act of Congress to be in con-
hIct with the former provisions. But
the expression of the Constitution is
the same in one clause as in the other;
and if the act of Congress in the GAR
LAND case was, as the Court held it to
be, bill of attaiAder and er post fectC
law, it is impossible to say that ouI
West Virginia Test 0aths are not like,
wise bills of attainder aud ez post fdctC
laws, and therefore in conflict with tn,
Constitution of the United States.
Upon that question it is conceded
that the decisions of the United State'
Courts are paramount and supreme; AMI
the force and effect of decision con
Sists in the principles which ART
settled aud established by it, and no
In the particular facts to which thes,
principles are applied; which facts il