Year: 1867

ress Onths Exploded.


The opinion of the Supreme Court of
the United States, delivered in the case
Of the Rev. JOHN A. CUMMrNs and in
that Of Mr.. A. II. GARLAND, will be


found in another column. This i'm


potant decision merely confirms what
every honest lawyer in the country be-
fcyed with regard to the entire "Test
Oath" system. The illegality Of that
system has always been palpable to the
minds of dispassionate jurists and these
authoritative utterances!upon the sub
ject enunciate no new principle.


At the same time this decision will
give great satisfaction to the country at
large, if it be permitted its just effect,
in wiping out those blots upon our
statute books, which, under the name OF
Oath Bills" have so long disgraced
our legislation.


We have a right to expect, on the
part of our Legislature, a practical rec
ognition of the authority of
the Supreme Court, in the shape
ofa repeal ofall such legislation as con-
travenes the letter and spirit of the de-
cision just made. However distasteful
it may be, the unconstitutionality Of
our "Test Oath" system snow determin-
ed and fixed; the decision which ex-
plodes it is the law of the
land, and the removal of this OBJ
noxious feature from our statute books
is the imperative duty Of the Legisla-
ture of the State. We are sorry to be-
lievc that sclf-constituted leaders will
labor to prevent this act Of justice. The
Wheeling Mtelligmccr, q journal which
il is well known, assumes to give
direction and tone to our legislation,
published on yesterday the dissenting
opinion in these cases, apparently for the
purpose of sup lying reckless partisans
with arguments wherewith to defend
any new Legislative -enormities that
may be in contemplation. The majori-
ty opinion, tho lato Of the case, ii
failed to present. VAST afraid to place
before our lawmakers an authoritative
condemnation of much of their legisla-
toni Was it in dread lest the represen-
tatives of its party might remember
their oaths, obey the constitution as in
terpreted by the tribunal whose con-
struction thereof is final, and wipe out
the entire batch Of unconstitutional
enactments, with which they have fos-
tered Radicalism and disgraced the
Statef Such would appear to be the
case, but if there is any honesty or man
hood in the Legislature now in session,
the dictum of an arrogant party jour
nal will not be allowed to outweigh the
obligations of duty and respect for the
law.


The Baltimore G0sette comments at
some length upon the decision to which
We have referred. We quote as fol-
lows:


So reckless have been the usurpations
of the State and Federal Governments,
and so servile and sophistical have been
the rulings of partisan Courts, that
many men had become bewildered; and
rs they contrasted the political and le-
gal doctrines which were held by every
statesman, from the time of Washing
ton to that of Webster, with the new
and startling creed promulgated for five
years past, they had begun to wonder
whether such thing as legal truth or a
political fact really existed. To all
such, the late decisions Of the Supreme
Court will be as welcome as is the flash
of familiar beacon to the anxious sea-
man who is close upon dark and danger
Gus shore. The Court has decided that to
prohibit o man from discharging his
duties rs a priest or from practising his
Constitution of the United States e1-
pressly prohibits the punishment of any
one by an er post Jacto law-and that
law which precludes individuals from
pursuing their ordinary avocatiOns be-
cause they have sometime before said or
done something which it was not un-
lawful to say OF do, is an er post facto
law. The Court has, therefore, declared
those portions of the Constitution of
Missouri which are, in fact and effect,
ex post fdcto laws unconstitutional and
void. The reasoning of the Court is
clear and unanswerable As We have
only received synopsis of these opin-
ions, we will not pretend to criticise
them closely. But we have enough to
understand their full scope and force.
The Importance of these decisions to
the country, and especially to us, cannot
be overrated. True, the question touch
ing the invalidity Of law which dis
franchises q citizen for an act which
mad not before been unlawful, or for
which disfranchisemsnt had not been