Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1888-02-14
THE TEST OATH,
A SKETCH OF THE ARGUMENTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT.


the Legislature the Power to Pass
this Law!-Leading Points on Both
Sides.
Two cases designed to test the va
l'dity of the Statute commonly known
as the Idaho Test Oath, were argued
in the Supreme Court on the 10th
inst. At the first general election in
Bear Lake, following the passage of
the act, two citizens offered to vote.
Each proposed to take a part of the
oath so as to give an opportunity to
test the law in part and as whole.
The judges of election rendered the
entire oath as contained in the Statute
and, on its being refused, rejected the
votes. Actions for damage in &c.,
700 each were then brought against
the Judges of election in the District
Court of Bear Lake county. These
cases were tried before Chief Justice
Hays, sitting as District Judge. He
sustained the Statute. The plaintiffs
appealed.
Hon. r. Z. johnson said: "These
cases involve an important principle
that is Of interest to every American
citizen. | appear here to day the fee
BILE advocate of cause that has been
dear to the people from the colonial
days, the right of suffrage. The ques-
ton is, what limitations can be placed
on that ri ght and how far Legisla-
ture can go in DISTINGUISHING their
constituency"
He then read from fuckers Black
stone and said: "Judge Tucker was
contemporary of the Constitution
"Thc right of personal opinion is one
of those absolute rights which man
has received from his creation"
The word religion is not defined in
the Constitution. We must 90 else
where. The case of Reynolds VS.. The
United States (9S U. S. 1C2), con-
tains an epitone of Colonial history.
The principle there enunciated by the
Supreme Court OF the United States
is that the law may punish an overt
act but cannot reach faith or opinion.
Jefferson said, sit is time enough for
governments to interfere when princi-
Piles break out into overt acts"
The Court in Board of Education
VS.. Minor, Is Am. Rep. 242, say: "The
genius Of our institutions has neve,
tolerated a test of our belief as d
qualification to vote or hold Office
He then read from the debates on
Congress, at the time when the Ed.
munds bill was under consideration
passage where Senator Edmunds de.
clares that it is not the purpose of the
bill to punish belief.
CHIEF JUSTICE HAYs-Do you un-
derstand by Judge Edmunds's re marks
that he meant to say that Congress
had not power, or that as a matter OIL
policy he would not?
Mr.. JoHNsoN-I understood hin
to say he had not the power.
JUDGE HAYs-I wish to call you
attention to the 9th section of the Ed
munds act. 1t provides that juro
shall not be qualified "1F HE BELIEVES
IT RIGHT for man to have more thar
one living and undivorced wife at the
same time" That is matter of hi.
belief and this act, as understand it
has been affirmed by the Supreme
Court Of the United States. Is no
the position Of juror an officer of tn
Court and does not that act seem t
indicate that they have the power ane
right to expel him from his position a
an officer Of the Court, purely upo'
the ground of his belief? If that i
true is not the remark of Judge Ed
munds las you understand it) contra
dictory? Is not the act of Congress
in conflict with his statement as t,
their legal power? Is it not eviden
that Judge Edmunds intended to sa,
that as a matter of policy he woul'
not do it, rather than to announce hi
judicial opinion tina, they had not tn
legal power?
MIR. JonNsoN-It seems to me tn
9th section has no bearing upon tn
question | am discussing. You ma.
call the juror an officer OF the Cour
but there is no right, there is nothin!
in our institution that guarantees t.
any man to serve on a jury. We ex