Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1869-02-02
The Underwood Constitution and the
Test Oath.

The Washington correspondent of the Rich
mond State Journal (RadicaD states that the
Conservative members of the Convention which
framed the Underwood Constitution, had it in
their power to defeat the test oath so much OBJ
jected to, but would not do it because, by re-
tanning it, the Constitution would be made SO
odious as to make its rejection by the people
certain. ''This statement" he says, was
made before the Reconstruction Committee by
Governor Wells, and evidently made deep
impression. And the impression will not soon
wear off. ~
The Journal of the Convention tells very
different tale When the section of the Con-
stitution requiring all ofice-holders to take the
test oath was adopted, every Conservative mem
Der of the Contention voted against 1t, and it
was carried, against their votes and earnest
wishes, by the Radical majority. And there
was no time, then nor afterwards, that they
''had it in their power to defeat the test oath.
Towards the close of the session it was rumored
that Mr.. Thomas, of Henry county, leading
Radical, intended to propose some modification
of the oath. AS we happen to know, the mat
ter was subject of frequent conversation a.
mongst the Conservative members They
unanimously and anxiously desired to have the
test oath stricken out of the Constitution, but
it was understood that Mr.. Thomas did not
propose to do that, but only to modify it in
some way not now recollected. A few of the
Conservatives took the ground that, while they
would gladly vote to strike out the oath, they
would not vote for modification of the section
merely exempting the inferior and less impor-
tant office holders from the necessity of taking
the oath, but still requiring it of Governor
Judges. members of the Legislature &c. They
argued that such proposition was insulting to
the great body of eur people, and was only in
tended as bride to the multitude of aspirants
to petty offices to vote for the Constitution. :
Most of the Conservatives, however, determined
to vote for whatever ameloration should be pro-
posed.
In pursuance of his plan, Mr.. Thomas, on
the 10th of April, moved that the rules be
suspended, for the purpose Of modifying the
oath of office" (See Journal, p. 379.)
The chair decided that it required two
thirds vote to suspend the rules, and the Con
vention sustained the decision. This decision
seems to have been perfectly correct although
most of the Conservatives voted against it
The question then REQUIRED upon the motion
made by Mr.. Thomas, and it was rejected for
the want Of two-thirds vote in the affirmative.
Five Conservatives voted against the PROPOSE
ton, but if all Of them had voted for it, there
would still have been less than the two-thirds
necessary to carry it.
Mr.. Plat next moved that the rules be sus-
pended for the purpose of modifying the oath
in regard to county Offices" Eight Conserva
tives voted against this proposition, but if all
had voted for it, it would still have failed.
On the same day, Mr. Williams moved that
the rules be suspended ''for the purpose of Of
fering resolution to strike out the sixth secs
tion," which prescribes one of the oaths of Of
fee The chair ruled the motion out Of ORDER
and Was sustained by the majority; every Con-
sentative voting for the proposition.
It thus appears that the Conservative mem-
bers of the Convention unanimously opposed
the test oath when it was inserted in the Con-
stitution, that they unanimously voted to strike
it out, and that if all of them had voted for it
they could not have obtained even a modiica-
Of <bo