Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-03-30
U. s. SUPREME COURT.
The Case Of T. y. Blair, jr, VS..
State of Missouri.
From tbe baltimore Gazette of 18th.

From the Baltimore Gazette of 26th.l
In the Supreme Court to-day argu.
meut was concluded in the causes of T.
P. Blair, jr., plaintiff in error, against
JOHN S. Thompson ct al; and Warren
WoodsOn. plsintiff in error, against the
State Of Missouri ex rel.
Senator Drake resumed his argument
from yesterday, maintaining that the
elective franchise is not q natural right
in this, or Sny other country. It is q
privilege granted by the sovereign au
thority. The people have the power to
make or unmake voters; their power
over the subject is unlimited. He de-
MED that the constitutional requirement
of taking the test-Osth as condition
precedent to voting is in the nature Ofsn
ca post factO law. The plaintiff was not
entitled to set up this plea. There was
no attempt to visit punishment upon
him. His vote wss rejected because he
had refused to take the oath required by
the Constitution, while be claimed that
he had taken another and different
oath. But the plaintiff, this Major
General in the army, did not oppose the
oath when he was a candidate for the
Vice Presidency. He came forward and
took the oath in order that he might
vote.
Mr.. Montgomery Blair, interrupting,
said that was true, but the oath was ta-
ken under protest as unconstitutional.
Mr.. Drake, resuming, ssid this claim
on the part of Mai -Gea. Blair, advanced
in this Court, under the circumstances,
is one of the most extraordinary ever
heard. In his petition he starts out by
saying that at the outbreak Of the war
he took up arms at Camp Jackson and
elsewhere, and was in armed hostility
to the government of Missouri, headed
by a rebel Governor and supported by
the Missouri State Guard, gotten up by
and commanded by Sterling Price, COM
missioued by Gov. Jackson to act against
the United States. Mr.. Drake then
quoted from the State Constitution to
show that voters were required to take
the oath that they had never been in
armed hostility to the United States aud
their lawful authority, or to the govern
ment OF Missouri, and argued that there
was q difference in being in arms and in
armed hostility.
Gov. Jackson's first act Of war stripped
him OF his official character and left him
a mere rebel, unlawful, felonious and
trsitorous, without protection from con-
stitutienal authority.
Jackson and his followers sought to
overthrow the State government aud to
sever Missouri from the Union. To up
| hold the Constitution in its integrity was
/ the intention of the plaintiff when in
arms to defend the State government.
It should not be regarded as hostility to
the State. The act did not proceed from
enmity or hostility, but from desire TO
| uphold and preserve both. He was not
acting in violation of law, but in obe-
| dience to 1t, and the refusal Of Gen.
Blair to take the oath was owing to his
| own perverse and obstinate will.
Hon. VIM. M. Evarts, of counsel for
the plaintiff, regarded this question as
| one OF the greatest Importance. There
| is no political dispute between the State
Government and the Federal Govern
ment, but the Supreme Court Is asked to
| intervene solely for the protection OF
citiz ems sgainst their own s late suthori-
ties, solely in maintenance Of the para
mount and universal protection of citi.
zens throughout the land, against State
oppression and in maintenance Of the