Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-17
TINE rCST 01TsT ~ VIRGINIA


THE TEST OATH I'm VIRGINIA.
1t is to the credit of the New
York Tribune that it comes out
against the proposed application
by Gen. Candy of the test oath
to the members of the Legislature
just elected in Virginia. That paper
says:
'Her free republican constitution, with
al! prescriptions and acknowledgements
stricken out, has been ratified by the
largest majority ever given for any COM
situation Of any State; and we should
esteem it grave public misfortune that
such an overture should be repealed.
"sThen you would have the members
elect to the new Legislature admitted to
their seats without taking the iron-clad
OATH
0Most certainly. This has been al
lowed in other States; why not in Vir-
ginia2 Every one should take the oath
of fidelity to the government and consti'
tuition, but not be required to swear that
he nerer gave aid or comfort to the Re-
| bellion. 1t seems to us strained con.
struction of existing laws which requires
this.
"There is nothing to be gained by
shutting out of the new Legislature two
score or so of the foremost men of the
State.
1.-THE recent triumph of the Walker
party was won on the ground of acqui-
| essence 10 the reconstruction policy OF
| Congress with resistance 10 any further
or other penalties or prescriptions than
are therein set forth Doubtless, ma
iority of the Walker men would have
| preferred somewhat different terms; but
they have assented to these, and they
should be held to them, and dealt with
accordingly
| The New York Times also takes
decided ground against the prepos-
ferrous purpose of Gen. Candy. 1t
appears that Gen. Canby's idea is
that the test oath is required by the
terms of the ninth section of the
second supplementary reconstruc-
ton act, which provides:
That all members of said boards Of
registration, and all persons hereafter
elected or appointed to Office in said mil
itary districts, under any so-called STATE
or municipal authority, or by detail Of
! appointment of the district commanders
, shall be required to take and to subscrib'
the oath of Office prescribed by law TO-
officers of the United States.
r The applicability of this section
I however, is denied. 1t is clear, a
} maintained by the Times, that i
describes only elections or appoint
! ments to office Gin said military dis
n tricts under any so-called State o
municipal authority" plainly refer
e ring to the States or government
described in the first Reconstructed
n act as being mot legal State gov
e ernments," as provisional only,
/ and in all respects subject to tn
paramount authority of the Unite
IS States. 1t can have no bearing,
II the Times insists, upon government
e or constitutions designed to /
created under the authority Of tt
+ United States, which, as to the Ca
olinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkar
sas, Florida and Alabama, are NJ
$50 called" governments, but go
h ernments de jure. This questio
was considered in the case of Geo
$ gia, being referred by Gen. Meat
4 to Gen. Grant, in whose hands,
Il commander of the armies, Congre
h had rested authority to decide. c
the I'd of March, 1868, Gener
Grant, in dispatch to Gener
+ Meade, wrote as follows:
The officers elected under the nt
; constitution Of Georgia are not officers
k the provisional government referred
of in the reconstruction acts, nor are tn
officers elected under any so-called Sta
L authority, and are not, therefore, r
es quired to take the oath prescribed
W section nine, act of July l9, 1867.
ID An attempt having been made
60 Radicals in Georgia to induce Gre
- Grant to change his decision,
" replied, Goth April, 1868, in d
- patch to the district commander
o. Atlanta:
- al have carefully read your letter
i, 10th April and its Enclosures. | E
e nothing in them to change my opini
nc as expressed to you in my dispatch
March 2, 1868. The officers elected u
Ve der the new constitution of Georgia a
m not officers of the provisional governmt
referred to in the reconstruction &C
in nor are they officers elected under a
so-called State authority, and are n
q, therefore, required to take the oath pl
IT. scribed in section 9, act of July l9, Is
- The eligibility to hold Office must be {
IT. termined by the new constitution, a
Ie, the amendment to the constitution
&C. the United States designated as arti
IA"
The iron clad oath, therefore, W
Y. not administered to the membt
IL of the Georgia Legislature.
20 Louisiana the same course "
It's pursued. The following is the t,
re- egraphic dispatch from Gen. Ora
ng to Gen. Buchanan:
ne Il have no orders at present to 81
res but | repeat to you as heretofore, Il
,o+ the members of the Louisiana Legis
'0 ture are only required to take the of
OF prescribed by their constitution, and 6
Y not required to take the test.oath pl
scribed in the reconstruction acts. &c
-eS erals Meade and Candy are acting
ed this view of the case.
In "U S. GRANT.
The only oath required Of t
members of the Nerth Carroll
ID Legislature was the oath Of off
nv required by the constitution of Il
% State, which is merely an oath
20 allegiance 10 the State and t
-, United States. The members we
nt required to state that they were I
on banned by the fourteenth amer
: ment to the constitution of theU MI
80 States. The same was the case
South Carolina.
Gen. Candy excerpts to the p
not