Year: 1869

WASHINGTON, March 25.-In the Supreme
Court Of the United States, to-day the argument
concluded IN the OF f. T. Blair, r plaintiff In
ror agt John g. Thompson, et al and Warren Woodson,
plaintiff error agt the State OF Missouri ex rel Sem
aor Drake resumed his argument from yesterday main
tanning that the elective franchise is not natural right
in this or any other country 1t Is privilege granted by
the sovereign authority The people have the power to
subject Is unlimited lie denied that the CON
stltutional requlrement-the taking OF the test
oath az condition precedent TO votng-ls in
the nature OF an er post acio law. The plaintiff not
ehG% ss Snusben 1S se upon Sm His vote was rejected be-
he had refused to take the oath required by the
and different OATH but the plaintiff this MajorGeneral
in the army did not oppose the oath when ho
ddate the ePresidency he forward and took
the oath In order that he might vote.


Mr. Montgomery Blair interruptng, said. that was
true but the oath taken under protest as uncons
Mr. Drake resuming said that this claim on the part
OF MaorCen Blair, advanced In this Court under the
circumstances IL one of the extraordinary he had
% Ss seeTaS IL R Val R ne 1S out sy saying an Ga
Jackson and elsewhere and was n armed hostility TO tho
supported by the Missouri State Guard gotten up and
commanded by Sterling frIGe commissioned by Gov.
then quoted from the State Constitution 20 shew that
voters were required To take oath that they had
been In armed hostility TO the United STATES, ana
their lawful authority, or the Goyernment OF Missouri
and argued that there difference In being In arms
and armed hostility. Gov. Jacksons first act OF war
stripped him his official character, and left him mere





lection constitutional authority Jackson and his
followers songht to overthrow the State Government and
10 seyer Missouri from the Union To uphold the Cons
tnton I'm its integrity was the intention OF the plaintiff
When In arms defend the State Government, 10 could
not be regarded as hostility The act did
proceed from enmity hostility, but from desire to
uphold aud preserve both. He was not acting In VIOLA
ton but In obedience IT, and the refusal or Gen
Blair take the oath owing to his own perYerse and
obstinate Will


The Hon. VIM. NJ. Eyarts OF Counsel for plaintiff re-
garded this question OF the greatest Importance.
There is political dispute between the State Govern
nent and the Federal Government; but tho Supreme
Court asked intervene solely for tho protection OF
the citizens against their State authorities solely


maintenance Of the paramount and universal protection
OF citizens throughout the land against State oppression
and In maintenance OF the bill OF rights OF the Federal
Constitution wherein the people OF State are protected
from oppression by the Government OF State. lie
quoted the tenth section OF the Constitution OF the


United States show that state can pass any bill OF
attainder dcto law. aud that such prohibition
was a prohibition against condemnation and
punishment of citizen excepting by Judicial authority


The Constitution OF Missouri provided that every free
age OF 2i years shall deemed qualified voter &c. the


General Assembly having power TO exclude from offices
OF trust aud profit all persons convicted Of bribery
Jury or other Infamous crimes. The plaintiff had right
TO vote but when he returned to civil life he found that
he could not This not In consequence Of any judi
cia proceeding, but by the exercise OF political power OF
the State In imposing extraordinary conditions, Ho
maintained that the act OF Legislature which de-
nounces and Furnishes citizen, depriying him OF his
civil rights IL In the nature OF a bill OF attainder.


Court adjourned until Monday