Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1868-11-20
WHOLE NO. 47s.
The Right OF sunrngc-suprcn,c
Court Dcqixfan. -

NOurt Bcrkxian,
Our Legislature being now In sea
sion, VIC take the liberty Of calIin,
it's attentionto the following decisio,
of the Supreme Court Of New York
which bears with cqual force upo,
the test oaths and other Illegal en-
4 actments of the Legislators Of mi
State. We do not expect any eoot
from the extract, further than th,
enlightenment of the popular mint
ON the'sabject of the peoples right
under the Constitution and the law
conforming thereto:
< Court of Appcols of thc State o.
1fi2cr, J.-This case. involves III,
CONGREGATIONAL validity Of that portion
OF the act to provide fcra convention
70 revise and AMEND the. Constitution
or this State, which excludes ffpn;
the privilege'of voting all wins, refuse
TO take the test oath prescribed by
the act in questions. Is. L. of 1851
chap. l94, sec. 9, pagc 25T.l
think that the oath In question
was unconstitutional and Invalid
The first subdivision of the tenth
section of the first article of the Con.
stitutioff OF the United States pro.
vidcs that "no State shall pass any
bill Of attainder, ca post .facto law,
or law inspairiHg the obligations OF
contracts, or grant any title Of nobiI-
ity." This act declares that no per
son shall vote at the election for del
egates to said convention who will
not, II duly challenged, take and
subscribe an oath that he has not
done certain acts mentioned therein.
and infiicts the penalty of political
acknowledgements, without any prc.
liminary examination or trial, for a
refusal to take said oath. Thus, the
citizen is deprived, upon declining, Of
a right guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion and the laws, and one Of the
most inestimable privileges of a free
government. There can be no doubt,
1 think, that to deprive a citizen oi
the privilege Of exercising the elect
i've franchise for any conduct of which
he has previously been guilty, Is to
intiict punishment for the act done.
1t imposes upon him severe penalty;
one which, by the laws of this State,
Is a part Of the punishment inflicted
after conviction for felony. 1t arbi-
trarily and summarily, and without
any Of the forms Of law, Furnishes
for an offense created by the law
itself a9iani ots =, T''-''
| When the act in question was
passed by the Legislature. there was
no law In this State which condemns
cd or characterized the conduct which
Is punished in this act, by depriving
the citizen of the right of Suffrage
This law created new crime, and
makes an oficnse which did not pre-
viously exist. It Furnishes for an act
which. was not an act when COM
mitted. Besides the statute in 0ues-
tion, In violation of the rules Of com
mon law. .pronounces Judgment OF
condemnation without evidence,
without any opportunity to defend
against the charge, and without any
trial. 1t makes the party the accuser
NJ -hinisalf md his s-roffisnl- tn ncnnit
demnation. 1t Furnishes for an Of
fense before an accusation Is made,
and q trial had judicially according
ITO the Constitution and the laws OF
the land. Itcompels him, i'm direct
violation of the Constitution of the
United States, to lie a witness against
himself. His refusal to testify that
he Is innocent operates to produce his
own conviction, and seals his guilt
The object of the fifth amendment
was to prevent the party from being
called upon as a witness of his own
guilt. To compel him to testify
would violate this provision; and in
directly to make his refusal to testify
q cause for punishment, effects the
same purpose. 1t Is only an evasion
OF the provision cited. 'u0 Ae9 4tp
Again, the act is essentially In the
particulars indicated, both a hill of
attainder, or of pains and penalties,
and an CT post .fdcto law. In Cum
mings against the State of Missouri,
"A Wal, 227,) bill OF attaiDder Is
defined to be legislative act which
infiicts punishment without o judicial
trial. Field, j., i'm the opinion of the
court, remarks: "In these cases the
Legislative body, In addition to its
Legitimate functions, exercises the
power and Office OF judge II assumes,
IN the language Of the textbooks,
judicial magistracy; 1t pronounces
upon the guilt of the party without
any of the forms or safeguards of tri-
al II determines the suf1iciency OF
the proofs pyoduced, whether con-
formidable to the rules of evidence
or otherwise and 1t fixes the degree
of punishment in accordance with its
own notions Of the enormity Of the
offence.n The learned Judge cites
cases from British history where bills
of this character had been passed,
and the Court held that the second
article of the Constitution of the
State of Missouri, which required a
test oath from priests and clergymen,
In order that they might continue In
the exercise of their professions, and
be allowed TO teach and preach, con-
stituted a bill of attainder, within the
meaning Of the provision OF the Fed
eral Constitution, prohibiting the
States from passing bills OF that
character. ,..-+rs 0- .. s.
The Court also held that the clauses
of the same article, In depriving
priests and clergymen Of the right To
preach and teach, impose 70 penalty
for acts which We're Innocent when
they were committed, and increase
the penalty for certain public often
ses, and IN both particulars violate
the prohibition Of an cx post (acfo
law. That they further violatci that
provision In altering the rules Of evil
dcnce with respect to the proof OF the
acts specified; thus, In assuming
guilt instead OF the innocence Of the
parties, IN requiring them To establish
their innocence, instead of requiring
the Government to prove their guilt,
and In declaring that their Innocence
can he shown only In ono way, by an
expurgatory oath. .a,..J
In or pafe Garland a Wal, 333,
u similar question was presentesl, aIrl