The Washington times., 1923-08-11
COOLIDGE OATH.
LEGALITY IN
DOUBT
Noted Vermont Lawyer Holds
Notary Had No Authority
to Administer Il.
Continued from First Page1

Continued from First Page)
am Of the opinion that in the alb
sence Of a Federal statute author.
izing a notary to administer the oath
10 the President, he has no author
ity to 50 act.
"As you win note from quoted
Federal statutes notaries are au-
thorized to administer oaths in all
cases where, under the laws Of the
United States, justices Of the peace
were formerly authorized to act.
Finds No Authority.
"I have been unable to find that
such power giving the Presidential
OATH has ever been given to q JUS
tice of the peace under a Federal
statute.
"The United States Constitution
prescribes that the President must
take the, oath and gives the form Of
the oath, but the Constitution does
not state by whom the oath IL to
be given, and Federal statutes seem
to be silent on the matter"
Attorney Miller Is of the opinion
that the power Of q notary permits
him to administer an oath Of office
only to Vermont officials.
It il the rule for Federal APP
podntees in the various states to be
sworn in by a Federal district COM
missioner, Judge or clerk Of court
and Attorney Miller could not recall
one Federal appointee taking oath Of
office from State justice or notary.
II this procedure Is important and
n%y a. IN t.
cases, it would be much more inn
portant in the case Of a President,
he reasons.
In support Of his viewpoint he re-
fers to the opinion Of the Federal
court in the cases Of the United
States VS.. Curtis uO7 u. s. 671), the
United States VS.. Bailey-Peters O.
s. 238), and Herman VS.. Herman
a Washington G. G. SIS, Federal case
No. 6407.
Ruled Notaries Incompetent.
In these cases Of Federal char
acter, the United States courts ruled
that acts of State notaries were not
competent in Federal Jurisdiction.
Confirming Justice Harlan in the
case Of the United States VS.. Curtis,
Justice Miller, delivering the opinion
Of the United States Supreme Court
in the case Of the United States We.
Hall Q31 U. s. SOY, on May Is, 1899,
says: There is no general defini.
ton; and we have been unable to
find, after q most careful and pro-
tracted examination, any statute
which gives a general authority to
any officer, or any person whatever.
to administer oaths in all cases
Where,vby the laws of the United
States, they are required"
It should be remembered that the
oath prescribed is a part Of the
United States Constitution, which is
the basis for the laws of the United
States. Hall was accused of perjury,
having made q false oath before a
notary. He was a Federal surveyor.
His case came before the Supreme
Court on O. demurrer. The principal
question involved was this: IL a
notary public authorized to ad.
minister oaths and take and certify
affidavits of the character and for
the purposes for which the affidavit
set out in the indictment is alleged
to have been prepared or used?
In the opinion of the court a
notary had no such authority in this
Federal case.
kACGS VdA1UebLGUs
The loophole through which Presi-
dent Coolidge might escape the oner.
Gus duty of doing over again what
he has ordered and approved, should
he have to take oath again, may be
found in the general principle of law
as laid down in the textbooks, THAT
the taking of an official oath, before
an officer not authorized to ad-
minister it, does not render void the
official acts Of the person taking it,
and assuming office thereupon; for
the rule sustaining the acts Of an Of.
ficer de facto will validate his acts"
At all events, growing public
opinion favors observance Of the
custom by Calvin Coolidge Of being
sworn in as President Of the United
States by a justice Of the Supreme
Court.