Year: 1870

EullOle OF tne htBl5teT:


/ saw to day an article in the bitter
prescription paper ycleped the Estate
Journal" urging the Legislature to re.
tain the registration law in all its exclu-
siveness aud in all it's corruption as long
as there is one disloyal man in the State.
This is the fallacy of all the proscriptive
arguments to talk in the present time
AID act as to the past. Look into this
matter Mr.. REGISTER and expose its hOl
Iowress. Letethe registration oath be
changed to the pre- sent time and then
those that cannot or will not take it
may Justly he suspected of vast Of
loyalty.


The Supreme Court of the United
States, in the latter end of the year
1865, in delivering its opinion in the
Cummings case rs. the State of Mis-
souri, speaking of Missouri test oath
similar to our test oath, says: The
oath thus required is, for Is severity,
without any precedent that we can dis
cover. In the first place, it is retrospsc-
tire it embraces all the past, from this
day; and, if taken years hence, it will
also cover all the intervening period
In its retrospective features we believe it
is peculiar TO this country. In England
and France there have been test oatbs,
but they were always limited to an af-
firmatiOn of present belief, or present
disposition toward the Government, and
were never enacted with reference to
particular instances of past miscon-
duct See 4th volume of Wallace's
Report, p. Big.


This is the principle the Legislature
of West Virginia processes to act on. The
whole thing as carried outin practice as
illusory. "And if the registrar doubts
the loyalty of such applicant he shall
not register him until he has sworn to
and subscribed the following affidavit"
Acts of 1867, p. so. If the registrar
doubts. That is in the present tense.
But the instructions sent by Governor
Boreman and, am told, by Stevenson
too, to the registrars and Boards of
Registration, wholly reject that pro-
vision and 60 back TO the former times
that it seemingly left.


knew a man who was posted on the
subject 60 to a registrar aud tell him
he had come to register. Well, if you
will take the oath. If you have any
doubt of my loyalty say so, and then if
| do not take the oath cannst register.
Do you doubt my loyaltyi 1 know
very well what the law meaus. So
the registrar would not say that he
doubted his loyalty at present, but
would not register him without the
oath, and so the matter stands. Sup
pose a man took part in the rebellion,
but is now sorry for it and is almost as
loyal as Governor Stevenson himself,
how is he to evince his loyaltyf He,
if conscientious man, cannot take the
oath. How, under the present regime,
is a man to show his loyaltyf Is the
law intended to exclude forever all that
were once disloysli If so, why not say
it instead of acting it and saying an
entirely different thing. The generous,
high-minded, magnanimeus, intelligent
Republicans who favor the "let.up"
movement see this state of things,
which the proscriptive and revengeful
portion of the Republican party also
see, but hide from the public
eye with the care and caution that
would betit better cause and better
action. l wish, Mr.. Editor, that dur
ing the session of the coming Legisla.
ture you would constantly keep before
that body, and also the public, the
question, how can rebel that is sorry
for his rebellion, aud is now perfectly
loyal, and is willing to give any reason
able pledge of present and future 10y
atty, manifest his loyalty to the powers
that be in this Statei Can it be done
under the present laws and present
oathsf Will those who are loyal osthly.
and are the dominant party, increase
even, in their own estimstion, the loyal
numbers by changing the registration
oath so that loyal men can take iti


l am told that neighbor of mine,
whose name l can give, who served in
the rebel army, in the Southwest gave
assurance as TO how he would vete and
the registrar had no doubts as to his
loyalty.n He was registered without
: taking the cath and votes to this day.