The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1869-04-01

The5case of Francis p Blair, Jr., VS..
John S. Thompson and Stephen
Ridgeley, in which is involved the
constitutionality of the Missouri test
oath, came up and was argued in the
Supreme Court OF the United States
on Wednesday of last week. The fol-
lowing brief history of the case we
| find in the Plain Dealer of Saturday:
General Blair, on the 7th of No
tEeInber,slS65, offered to vote in the
I State of Missouri, the retention of
! which in the Union during the war
was owing more to his eXertion than
those of any other one man. He of
/ fered to take the oath of loyalty, but
not the iron-clad oath prescribed by
the Constitution of the State, as he
i could not swear that he had never re-
sorted to arms for the purpose of
overthrowing the State government
| of Missouri, because, at the outbreak
of the rebellion, in October, 1861, he
organized a. military force to protect
the United States arsenal at st. Louis,
and, afterwards organized four regi-
/ ments and rendered them to the gov
ernment with which to operate against,
and which captured Camp Jackson
His vote was refused. Suit for dam
ages was then brought against election
judges Thompson and Ridgely, and
the case has now reached the final tri-
bunal, the Supreme Court. 1t is
claimed that, while the services of
General Blair were illustrious on the
side of the Union duriug the war,
one of the registrars who decided that
General Blair could not vote was a
man who seized Liberty arsenal, and
distributed the United States arms to
be used against the troops commanded
by the plaintif. By this overt act of
treason, he showed himself to be quail
ified to be supervisors of registration,
underlthe new regime, and he proves
as faithful to itfasF to to the Clai-
borne7Jackson dynasty. He reduced
the vote. of Clay county from about
$500 in 1860, to about $50 in 1866. .-
"+Again the present constitution of
Missouri was never ratified by ma
jority of those entitled to vote Re-
turns obtained and published indicated
q defeat, and the conviction founded
upon that indication was confirmed by
the refusal to publish the official re-
turns, oE5eyen to,alleW a committee of
the leading political friends of the
Governor access TO them heq I9nf =
, The Buffalo Courier says that the
prominent point in the case, however,
| has been the position taken by the
plaintiff, that such test-oath as that
required in Missouri operates as an
&c post Jacto law, or bill of attainder,
:. and falls within the prohibition of the
Constitution of the United States.-
i Deprivation, of tile elective franchise
! is punishment, and this punishment
is inflicted without proof of offense,
without trial, and operates as an e1
post .facto law. The 1oyaf people OF
Missouri attempted even to deny the
right to preach the gospel to those
who would not OF could not swallow
/ the iron-clad oath, but this was over
ruled in the Cummings case. Men like
General Blair, however, are still una
BILE to vote. 1t is reckoned that the
decision Of this case in favor of the
plaintiff would give the elective fran.
chlse to ninety thousand persons in
Missouri, to whom tits now. denied.
. Montgomery Blair, who argued the
case, on Wednesday, for the plaintiff,
makes this point in the case: A State
Convention, against the consent Of
the great body Of the people, then
under military duress established an
inquisitorial power, in the hands: of a
few individuals, to destroy the funda-
4 mental principles of both govern
ments-state and snational-the right
of suffrage in the body of the people
that established both.ll The registrar
by inquisitions, arbitrarily. deciding
upon the guilt or innocence of.voters
the crime imputed being tested by q
test oath, which, test oath. is not deci.
sive, but merely a probe to the con,
) science of the voter, and to intimidate
him-fhe convictions. being left en-.
tirely1 to the discretion of the regis.
trar, without trial. The final return.
, ing officer exerts the same arbitrary
) discretion over the returns, rejecting
at pleasure, in the count, precincts and
} whole counties where adverse MAORI
ties are given and the exclusion is
necessary; to force satisfactory. re.
result"
The arguments. We're concluded OF
Wednesday, after which the Court ad.
J journed till Monday. ........ .f,,..
The secret Of the qnarrel between
Grant and Washburne seems to be
! ktlat the latter insisted upon provision
being made for numerous members ol
his family. That lnterfered with the
Grants and Dents, and therefore, thus
far Washburne has only secured the
mission to Paris for himself, the office
of Second Secretary for Mr.. Moore
. his brother-in-law, and the Collector.
: bship at Portland, Maine, for his broth.
er, Isrcal Washburne, Jf.. 5fft9~
| 49, =
How a Lawyer got back His Knife, :
"A Baton Rogue paper relates this
story: aAt aE. 2BsTQs afs .a.di.
During the pres ent term of the Dis,
trict, Court, a Gentleman from the up.
E lt4IE
per portion of the parish, while en-.
! gagged in conversation with certain
amiable and well known attorney
CHANGED to borrow his pen-knife, and
Lot II, L.