Year: 1864

Now, compare the short process, or the
short cut upon this course, which the last
act of Congress and Of West Virginia take
and IL will be seen that il is either contra
~ to, an infringement Of, or in violation ol
every single one Of these provisions OF the
Constitution, These test oaths require
every person elected or appointed to sftice,
before entering upon the duties thereof, to
take an oath that he will support the Con
stitution of the United States, Snd Of this
State, which is rig ght and proper SO far; but
he is reQuiredt to swear further: "That thave
voluntarily given no aid or comfort to per.
sons engaged in armed hostility thereto, BY
eountenancing, counseling or encouraging
them in the same; that / have not sought, &C.
cepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions
of any office, whatever, under any authori
ty in hostility to the United States; that
have not yielded voluntary support to any
pretended government, authority, power,
or constitution within the United State, hos
tile or inimical thereto; and that l take this
obligation freely without any mental reser-
walton or purpose of evasion" The test
oath presented BY Congress is in nearly
the same words. twill be seen that eve
ry act named in this oath, if committed, is
treason against the United States, the high
est crime known to the law, crime which
no State Court can have any cognizance OF,
and over which crime no State Legislature
can, exercise any rightful control. This
crime can only be tried in the Federal
courts; yet the Legislature of West Virgin
ia by the adoption of this test act has as
sumed the responsibility of putting every
person elected or appointed to office, upon
trial for this high crime, so far as his office,
or, I should say, the liberty of holding it is
concerned; placing him upon the witness
stand on the trial of his own case, without
any "presentment or Indictment" without
being Uniformed of the nature and cause OF
the accusation against him." without the
privilege of "trial by an impartial jury"
thus "holding him to answer for capital or
otherwise Infamous crime" He must take
the oath, or lose his liberty of holding the
Office, and also his reputation. If innocent,
nobody knows it but himself. If guilty. he
may be tempted to swear false to save the
Office and his reputation, as none besides
himself might know. If he should refuse
to take the oath, whether innocent or
guilty, he would BE- presumed to be
guilty and forfeit the Office and his reputstion.


If innocent and loyal, as many are who
believe the Act q violation of the Consfitu
ton, and refuse to take it because they
cannot conscientiously do it while in the
same breath they swear to support the Con.
tuition, they too must forfeit the office and
their reputation--they too would be pre-
sumed guilty.


With an equal show of constitutionality,
it might bs required of the applicant to
swear that he had never stolen sheep, or
robbed hen-roost, or counseled or encour-
aged others to do 50, and, if he declined
taking such an oath, his refusal would be
construed to be confession of his guilt.


Itseems to be strange dose of legsla'
tion and jurisprudence mixed up together,
which strikes The innocent and the guilty
alke-a poisonous and dangerous medicine
for q free people and Tree institutions, as
may be Judged from its fruits in the old
world, where it has been extensively used.
How many free governments are there;
aud how much liberty? "Will wonders
never cease LIBERTY.