New-York tribune., 1869-03-25
THE CoNsTITUTIONALlTY OF THE TEST
OATH

WASHINGTON, D. c., March 2.-The Supreme
Court of the United States to-day took up the Of
Francis Blair, jr, plaintiff in ag John :. Thomp-
son ct al and Warren WoOdson plaintiff In agt The
state Of Missouri rel MONTGOMERY Blair, in opening
the said the petitioner IN this case Francis T.
Blair r offered to vote ut an election ~ nis,Snri sou IN ae
of right the ground that he had not taken the
oath Of allegiance and loyalty as prescribed by the Con
taken the oath with exception OF that part OF 1t
which was OF Retrospective character. The question
tribunal decided that he properly excluded from
voting he not having taken the prescribed oath MrSlair
and Pennsylyan 10 show that the Judges OF Elections
could not dlsranchise voters and that the Judgment
not binding These which the persons offering
TO vote required TO take an oath that they did not
desert and did NOT seek to avoid the draft 1t was held
tna the deprivation OF the right 10 vote part Of
the penalty for felony and the taking away Of this right
was therefore actual punshmen that penalty could
not be imposed for punishable the time they
committed and that man cannot be deprived OF
his civil rights by legislative Judgment but only by
Blair jr, could not take the oath that he bed
Government Of Missouri because at the outbreak Of the
Rebellion in October 1862 he organized military force
10 protect the United States Arsenal at St. Louis and AZ
terward organized four regiments and rendered them 10
the Government with which TO operate against, and
the Rebels at BoonsvlIe he Is required 10
swear he never made war on the State Government,
which was hostility 10 tho Government OF the United
States The State Government did not declare itself In
Of seeession too cunning for that but ITS OBJ
among them to capture the 50. Louis Arsenal Gen.
Bar he repeated, organized his forces without author
ity Of law, and IN connection with others captured tho
state forces The oath prescribed by tho Constitution Of
Missouri is called the oath Of loyalty He regarded 1t as
ts ts 0 Rd stood 90 ~ t
upon llat q the United States Mr. BLAIR spoke for
Senator Drake replied lie said he should connne him
in every particular but one qualified voter, and that
exception was he failed 70 qualify himself TO vote under
the Consultation OF Missouri Te the C3nsd0o% & n a. REQUIRED SE
and gso declared thai any person declining or refusing
to take the oath shall not vote but the plalntiir DC,
different OATH which he chose 70 construct FOR himself
and sues the Judges refusing to, to eGsyg sSS es sned yGe
vote, where by his showing he REUSED 10 take
the oath required Of every voter as condition precedent
In their Constitution who are and who are not en-
titled to vote Of the plaintiff t a. proceeded s S on
Ss5es o. the goqPa II no n2s true tbs
and iOI prescTyers OF their liberties. As neCes
sd guard the judiciary oIsaRea Ia% and
not it was said to a9ToSao tns anu poson sRa
It. Sr m the DTsSs peSDo tf N MISSOURI are the State
that they became State by mutual agTeeme1EE E Sr ars
tss snd se and NTH hcy themselves
as they ordafn, and establish their Consutnton: me
sef tSe e STATE from its enemies by excluding them f9
participation in It's government. none put qnanneu
treusS the ballot that the power bo exercised BY
the people. The Constitution demonstrates while u ar
them proceeded 10 show the necessity for the amendment
10 the state Constitution requiring oath Of loyalty
etc. and described the condition OF affairs
when the Rebellion shook Missouri from its
center TO its utmost boundary, and when
perjury aud treason pervaded the entire political
fabric Could there be written full history OF the con
don OF Missouri during the Rebellion and OF the ont.
RACES inflicted the loyal Inhabitants OF that state the
world would rccoi from II with horror. The Constitution.
ne maintained is q legitimate expression OF the VIII or
the people, and It's intention was 10 protect themselves
from ali enemies which they had right to do This is
an important subject OF inquiry.
At this point the Court adjourned Mr. Drake VIII re-
sumo his argument tomorrow.