The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-07-16
PETERSBURG. July IA. 1869.

PETERSBURG. July IA, 1869.
Editors Petersburg Express: There Is
nothing more important than that it shall
be known, il possibly 1t can be made known,
what is the law. IL is not my purpose 10
discuss the subject in which the. topic J
write this note to alludc to, is involved.
see in the Dispatch of this date the as
sertion that the act Of July IL, 1868, dTpsteS
only 10 Federal officers.
At one time / was OF that OPINION, ahI
was led to IL by misprint in the copy Oh
the act. which | cut out Of newspaper.
The misprint was this, Gin and under the
United States" Government, was printed
instead of Gin or under" &C., as it is in the
act.
wrote to my friend General Stonemain,,
and received the annexed reply, which, with
this note, please insert,
Very respectfully, :, ;.
STATE OF VIRGINIA, {
RICHMOND. VA, January ;, lSos.
Mr.. r, r. Collier, Petersburg, Va. !,
Sir,-In reply to your communication OF
the 1st instant, inquiring concerning Inv
meaning of the act of Congress OF july, IL,
1858. / am directed by the commanding
General to say that he regards all appo:n..-
ments made to fill State offices rs appoint
ments made Gin OF under the doVerniieIl
Of the United States" as they are mace pv
v;rtne Of the mower conferred upon him by
acts of the Congress of the United states,
and. consequently, that he is of opinion that
persons so appointed will not be required
20 take the oath Of July 2, 1862, after their
disabilities have been removed by Congress
bv vote of two-thirds Of each House.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant
s. F. CHALFIS,
Assistant Acknowledgement.
There is no conflict between our OPINION
and General SToNEMAN's. We of course re-
gard ali appointments made to NIL olhccs III
Virginia by the commanding General CT TINS
district as amendments made in or under
the Government of the United States; ana
we hold that all such appointees are right
fully and lawfully required to take elthel
the oath of Office of July 2, 1863, or that OF
.yuIy II. 1868. But we also hold that n seat III
the Virginia Legislatures not an office at all,
and is certainly not ga place Of trust III OF
under the Government ofthe United States
If the law could be made to apply TO State
Offices or places Of trust, nearly every o1fcer
in the South would have to surrender MS
Mace. and thousands of those in the North.
We present the following as parallel case
and as illustrating our meaning and the frye
meaning of the law. The Federal Cons'i'u-
ton contains this provision
ARTICLE VII. [Amendments.] . In suns
n common law. where the value in contro-
versy shall ebceed t1renty doHdrS, NE ftJ'"
oftriial by iuy.y shall bcpreserUed," DC.
In the Virginia Constitutional Conven-
ton of 1850, so intelligent man as the 'atc
JOHN MINOR Boris contended that 1t would
be violation of the Federal Constitution 10
extend, as it was proposed to do, the ]urlS-
tiction ofjustices of the peace to the sum OF
fifty dollars. But the lawyers OF the con-
yentiop held that the Federal Constitution
meant that the right of trial by jury should
he preserved in the Federal courts. and not
in those of Virginia. SO we say as to tins
law. 1t never was intended to apply TO the
officers of any State. 1t is Impossible 10 con-
cciyc Of Federal Congress undertaking 10
urescribe an oath of Office for State officers.
No State ever consults the acts OF Con-
press to learn what oaths her oihccrS
arc to take. This is question OF TACT, ana
needs, and indeed admits of, no argument.
Now, the Legislature just elected is state
Legislature, and its members can rlghtlully
be required to take no other oath than that
prescribed by the Federal Constitution or
by itself. General GRANT has us much right
to exact tcst-oath of the members oil the
New York Legislature as General CANDY
has to exact it. of the members of the VIZ
ginia Legislature. We showed Yesterday
that the State government which Congress
declared might he superseded was he
cessariy q so-called "rebel" State govern
ment. since not the most ultra Radical and
crazy consolidationist in Congress ever
claimed the right to " superscde" a State
government regularly and lawfully organ
lied under the Federal Constitution, and
recog nized as such by Congress.