Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-05-08

the President, and contemplate with unfeign-
ed anxiety and condemnation the unprece-
dented attitude assumed by the executive in
bis message rejecting the supplies rendered by
the people for the support of the army upon
the wholesome condition that no military
force should be used at the elections ~
"Resolued, That we hereby endorse the po.
sition taken by our Senators and Representa-
tives in Congress in coupling with the appro-
priation bills, now pending. demand for the
redress of grievances by the repeal Of exist
ing laws which tolerate the presence of sol.
diers at the polls, the continuance Of the test
oath as condition for jury service, and the
employment of supervisors and deputy mar
shals to control elections"
United States Jurors Test Oath.
- The Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case Of an appeal from the
United States District Court of the northern
district of Florida, have rendered an impor-
tant opinion in reference to the testoath for
jurors in the United States Courts. Judge
Strong alone dissented from the opinion Of q
majority of the Court. The gist Of this opin.
ion is that juror cannot, under the constitu.
ton. be required to answer the questions
which the United States district attorney is
empowered to ask him under section 820 Of
the Revised Statutes. Justice Field, who de-
livered the opinion of the court, said that he
went further than this, and considered the act
of Congress imposing the test-oath Revised
Statutes, section S2l) "is not only oppressive
and odious, and repugnant to the spirit Of our
institutions, but is clearly unconstitutional
and void" In view of this opinion, Judge
Bond, it is quite clear, will have to revise and
reconsider some of his recent decisions. The
following is a summary of the decision:
In the United States Supreme Court, April
2Sth, the case of George Burt ps. Maria M.
Ponjand, from the Circuit Court of Florida,
was affirmed. One of the assignments of er-
ror in the court below was brought upon the
question of jurors disqualification on &C.
count of participation in the rebellion and
the constitutionality of the jurors testoath
act. This court holds in opinion, by Justice
Miller, that a juror is no more obliged than a
witness is to state on oath, as to the condition
of qualification, his guilt or innocence of q
crime which would render him infamous.
Whether pardoned by the general amnesty or
not, the crime Of treason is one which a ju-
ror cannot be required to disclose in this
manner. If he be guilty, his challenger must
prove it by other competent testimony. In q
separate concurring opinion, Justice Field
gave his views as follows: II agree with the
court that Juror Holmes in this case could
not be required to answer questions put to
him, but 60 further. I do not think that
the act Of Congress which, by requiring the
test oath as to past conduct, excludes great
majority of citizens of half the country from
the jury box, is valid. In my judgment, the
act is not only oppressive and odious, repug-
nant to the spirit of our institutions, but is
clearly unconstitutional and void, as war
measure to be enforced in insurgent States.
When dominated by national forces the act
could be sustained, but after the war was
over, and the insurgent States were restored
to their normal and constitutional relations to
the Union, it was as much out of place and
imperative as would be law quartering a
soldier in every Southern mans house"