The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1884-10-04

Der. The Judge Brown" whose
name is mentioned as acting with
him in these and other cases, is
Hon. James H. Brown, Of Kanawha
at present a Republican candidate
for the Supreme Bench.
BELLIGERENT RIGHTS DENIED.
IAN act may be a public offense
and punishable as such, and yet
the right to damages by one injured
still exists; and person who en-
gagged in the rebellion is liable to
private individuals for acts of tress-
pass by him committed whilst in
the rebellion. And this right to
recover damages for the injury TO
the private party exists, notwith-
standing the person who committed
the trespass has been pardoned by
the Executive Department of the
United States Government. -
Judges Brown and Maxwell in
Hedges VS.. Price, w. Va, Io2.
"a party cannot justify himself
for committing acts of trespass by
the orders of the authorities of the
States acting even in pursuance OF
the laws thereof, when the State is
engaged in warfare and rebellion
against the government and laws
of the United States. Judges
Maxwell and Brown, in Lively VS..
Ballard, ? w. Va, 400.
THE JURORS TEST OATH
was a contrivance for placing the
control of all litigation in the hands
of the Republican party. Upon
that subject this decision is sub
JURORS TEST OATH SUSTAINED.
at is not error for the Circuit
Court to require jurors to declare
upon oath their qualifications as to
loyalty, according to the act of Nov.
a, 1868, the act not being uncon-
stitutional. Judge Maxwell, in
w Va, 400.
THE LAWYERS TEST OATH
was the outcome of a scheme to
deny Confederate lawyers the OPP
portunity to earn their bread by
the practice of their professions,
and to give a monopoly of legal
business to resident and carpet-bag
Republican lawyers. The Su-
preme Court rendered the following
decision
TEST OATH APPROVED.
1.-The act of February Ia, 1866,
in relation to the oaths of attorneys
at law, is not unconstitutional.
Therefore, no attorney can be ad-
mitted to practice his profession in
the Courts of this State without
complying with the terms of the
act in relation thereto. Judges
Brown and Maxwell En- Pay7e Hun
ter, w. Va, I22.
THE sUIToRs' TEST OATH
was designed to enable the Repub-
lican debtor to defraud his Confed-
crate creditor. 1t made him the
personal minister of a nations ven
geance, and tempted him to con-
fiscate the claims of the Confeder-
ate, not for the benefit of the Gov
eminent, but for his own emolu-
ment. In and a w. Va. Reports
may be found these decisions:
sUIToRs' "TEsT OATH" ENFORCED.
cit is sufficient if any one of a
number of defendants make the
preliminary affidavit required by
the act of February 20, 1865, in
relation to oaths by suitors; and
the making Of such affidavit will
warrant the dismissal Of the suit
upon the failure Of the plaintiffs or
some of them, to take and file the
oaths required by said act. -
Judges Brown and Maxwell, in
Nadenbousch VS.. Shaver, w.
Va, 285.
"The act of February IL, 1865,
requiring parties to take a certain
oath therein prescribed before they
are entitled to a re-hearing in the
matter Of judgment or an attach
ment, is not unconstitutional. -
Judges Brown and Maxwell, in
Pierce VS.. Carskadon, a w. Va,
24o.
- THE VOTERS OATH,
which embodied the vital principal
Of the registration law, compelled
The majority to abdicate its rights,
and enabled the Republican minor
ty to control your elections in OPP
position to the will of majority of
The people. We find in the deci-
'ions of the Supreme Court, the
VOTERS OATH AND REGISTRATION ACT
ENDORSED.
"The act of the Legislature Of
February IS, 1866, in relation to
challenging voters and requiring to
AXE the oath therein provided, is
not unconstitutional. Brown and
Maxwell, in Randolph VS.. Good, 8
w. Va, $50.
In'all the foregoing decisions and
many others, Judge Maxwell and
lis colleague Judge Brown have
snunciated and approved the we'll
Known policy of the Republican