The Opelousas journal. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1868-1878, 1869-06-26

Constitution. The statute is in the nature
Of a rcmcdial law. 1t provides the means
Of enforcing a Constitutional provision. It is
not retroactive in its effect upon any &C
Quircl right. 1t is not an r"po&t ;rHct1
law, because it is not penal. 1t leaves tc
the officer his right to- his Office under the
Constitution, aud permits him to establish,
within reasonable time, by lis own alIi-
davt, his eligibility to Office If he is
eIigihic, the mode Of establishing it i, SIM
pic and within his exclusive CONTROL Ii
he is not eligible, he has no acquired right,
and cannot complain. If, under the cir
cumstanccS, the Office becomes vacant, it is
not the Act of the Legislature; for the stat
ute No. 80 does not vacatc any Of the
offices, but provides the means Of a>ccr
tanning when and how they become vacant
in order that they may be propc.l ly filled.
Finding, in the Constitution, no prohibit
ton against the action of the Legislature
in the exercise of its authority. in the
matter under discussion, the Court, is OF
opinion that the Act, 50 far As it has been
considered, is valid.
Bat it is contcndcd in argument, that the
Act No. SO even if valid, did not require
the plantiff to take and file the eligibility
oath prescribed by section three Of the Act,
in the following words:
"That I never engaged il any insurrcc-
| ton or rebellion against the United States,
or gave aid and comfort to the enemies
| thereof, after having taken an oath as
member Of Congress, or as an officer Of the
United States. or as q member of any State
Legislature, or as an executive or Judicial
officer Of any State, to support the C"nsti-
tuition Of the United S:atrs.'
1t is argued that the plaintiff filed his
Rccantation Certificate, which exoneratcd
him from taking the first oath prescribed in
section three, and that the section did cot
require him to take the second oath pre-
scrbcd; and that, as he was not required
to take either ofsad oatEs, he was relieved
from taking the third or, as it is known,
the el.ibilty oath. In other word;, it is
-. '''''' -. .'' =.
-, ' c
r, ..;.:.u
plaintiffs counsel give a literal conStruc-
''''' - '''''
.1 J.
..,. ;,I'o" ar tha ~ o,,p,.n an;lavitt 10 test
his cli,jbiIjty to office, he must take in ad-
di,on the following oath.
The Court Garnet agree with the counsel
in their conclusion, without di>regarIn5.
all the established rules Of Interpretation;
and we need 60 no farther than our own
Coda IN ascertain what those rules are. Ar |
.;o,a 7c ,rt,o r;r;, Coda cove.
''''1 T.
hen the words OF a Ia" are ouo'ouS'
M noat@rt I.'t',.t ;th h;ch tho words
nhrases and sentences NAV be compared |
IN order to ascertain their true 1neaning.'
BY examining the context, it appears
that the first aud second sections Of the
Act require that the oath prescribed by
section three shall be taken by all officers
The word "oath' is used in the singular
number everywhere in the Act, which seems
to contemplate that the eligibility oath shall
nnder all circumstances be taken, unless the |
mo,:oo1 h +ho oo+;,,, IF Conoress
pa''y 10 ''''' p ), S''' , ': =: 1,,tot;t,,,oa
In which case, another oa'h IS su0S'ltu'e''
TO give the Interpretation contehueo lol'
by the>plaintiff's counsel, would be to rem
der nugatory two sections of the law,
which the Court is prohibited from dong
by the Article just quoted Inc l''h Ar'
of the Civil Code says;
LAWS in pnra materta, or upon the same
suc,.u' oecranoa ~ eacb otber. what is clear in
one statute may be called in aid to ex-
-