| Show S ruTI L LI I CULlS E L on the Robarts Callo Callope I S pe 11 0 House of 01 Jan 3 1000 the in n t N 2 U Ur r N AT or lEST the lf I I hut ai tet shall 1 II IoU I It Ii 11 r 0 r to I L d i I a a Iua under lIt ti tiC I h loti C r lound I In n na r I v h I 1 hi a tJ pJ Ial I n In II 1 va P PI IL ILI I 1 f n 1 to baa n I I 11 the II pro pr I 2 1 L I i In Ii IiI I not flO j Ih t I U In n nr ID he r t lX IJ to I I lrI tIe VI Is 13 I Ih I l I Ii entire Ii fl IA tK H the I rt It I II tI Il tl on b 1 10 the I IL I hOIl u uV itt III titi lIag V It h with ti or it I r COIl II n Article I r I In I li I I In t 1 I lIr I It I I Ir d i Ih tro Ion rI tIrI In 1 wurl t b b In I j I Ii It Itji I III II ji 1 III n iid l I Ii ft a d id t t and nd must be beI t tI I I u with TI TIu Ih that th 1 11 IU u lr r In Ini I II found r taule Is t i II hi I II rel lol l to U red lb H 1 11 t b l lI dl IO S n ib R P to tole I II en r to be entitled In I r le 5 like 1 la r r J It This I fh i 1 11 i I I This f d and Anderson 1 I I I the common law gr 1 T IR In n nII II I i I s 1 la lS t I al L t tho ot C CI If n I I ct I I 1 constitutions I b DulUN ot of II ft but bill ot C J th therein with refer 1 II lib and tire tru I ft tk Ii such r rc L oAth and feete feet JI e Fr had ha hal II l I tn ri to by the I Par Part ParI t I I Jal for tor the pur purI ur urI i I Ti HI r the JI ot C Insuring the tho downfall C l theT rf r kiTIng to his rant b bi that the fact j I to the th thI t t m T ro F I 1 i f Ih I nm rs of our original which this iJ n fr TO w I t lilt tiey meant that no nueh rItT or Jr eM 1 i r on eny other ether ot of like Ilko j e 1 dc a condition p I ni niI or anY 1 has ban th r I I It t be I t an flY office or pub n 1 Ih j States sInCe ic n nas fu fur tor r r mn w TIE to the In hi InI hii i I th r on om I 4 antI no noW unit uMI unita r a Sin i 11 De r fl l If 17 I r I Ti of oC Law Lawr i iI I I r st r oath oathEr Er Eril ah k t t aIR G tj Geo j n c ce cri e ri I holding ot within a 3 1111 I L to tak take e h 11 I f and nt r P j a de ng and receive thU thUI I a eit a to the ot oth UI h ii or of The f ft a c test thus pro prot t L I C karl to something re rr ill t l lie 1 1 ly by nn an officer when C g upon or r after orter having entered 4 the Ibe and not to ca 1 IT nt ot if eligIbility while which p or r or orLU orI LU I i t I i which he must mustI I I rl r lie he can enter upon r e or dl C 11 11 t I b v Lr Ir Is o II ori ri that tha hi r does doell or does doea hot st at the ot 4 upon t TI Th allon ot of a rs III has r n as a 1 status It Ih I IU U I I It Is t simply n a condition to f J d No member con can change ti b fl to t the elements ot of I 1 j 1 Ir r qu ns fl denned In r ro rt o t rt fl 2 nt at the he time ot of entering tn tb flip Vt m but It if tire the tl I a q 1 i every mem memI I 1 If IC hiS hi f were um j fUIt with the tho test testIs I Is pr rr 1 It 1 upon the the upon tl t ture One relates to 1111 4 U oln fl r nt r t tione the other to to t A AAr n nA A Ar r tb t r ot of n a Judgment o oH 4 H use that n a 3 Ib h to LJ t tl t Ib i ath and only then r p I th i oath us ns n a qualification U It u Ls d I n rf r the blOC of oC U rause fully corroborates I TIP Th lb t ot of ArI Ar I n I TUh l exception ot of the theU theU U It I tha test oath and the rJ pi n which was vas added 11 I SUb ArtIco x t t th fr j it ot of the thie J U LI rc r I hr bv the committee ot of otA r J A Au 6 The Madison r debates on the Con tron tn 5 volume 6 5 g i It It Iau 11 T ul stion llon first appears I b i pr August 20 0 1757 anti ha by Mr Pinckney as an f 11 I fiTo to be referred P Lf It detail and then r I t t or shall I b r to lo any an oath ot of office r Ib ot of the tho the c j ns as hero here hereS S I t and to r I t r for tor argument and V t u 1 In the senile In h It as q II i In II I section 5 I f lle This conclusion Is p II 11 taCt fact not t a It d s It one ne time proposed b III a it constitutional pro 11 ir 1 C the legislature II urt tu t ono one t I 11 t bo Tb be r rt full an It Is Iari In 14 that tIit th they y would do dl doC r C I Use what the they hind had st h r d I i I I nt to do Inter ae being considered I r 1 n h InE 4 nR an amendment In a hi hs rigina Ill Ih language In n which It Itt itE t E In th ConstitutIon Ibid re Is lit 1 the b te to hrat Iy an any change In the 2 IJ he Any change chango inI In InCI CI I LI II Uon b by him t b aa the clause nto n to the theL bi L nt tint hat to the tho I in hill Ony With ith this view U 1 nM r I It to mo me that tt 1 l to religious tests hn Purpose 11 in en tf If the eJ elements 1 I tn t l t nI lil the attention ot of the 1 h relied Id upon ullOn f i J y in the right rl ht 1 41 r to the I 11 f I 1 man m the tho ot of the tho thep p 11 If n t bI Ohl In ft this t k h dl of the Buslon V In tf I pr r to halt the gen Gon r fl I m l t nh nt at the bar ot of the ther 0 r Stat In many instances lion wU similar 11 r t from the which te hOuse the e committee make to Th b s It cC of tIre the States r g have I I with 1111 practical unanimity against any such narrow construction ot of Constitution the The lOUBO was informed and I pre sums In nil all condor or that there were ver instances In the courts ot of thle tin country nany where tho they construed mr IlIr It fl dwindles doWn with 1 no now to several and as there thore are just that several States and as I Is a 11 tact that two agre re practical unanimity All ot of the now relied on were mentioned II by the ht gentleman from Ohio In his hll first tilt but I Submit with the air that the were lImp II a sample ot of the great ar ot Jf to follow tollow They rely upon ullon against Iluf Dut falo I want to to the members ot of the House that I 1 think tM the ronI Ohio was led mark you ou I 1 do riot tIA say that tho t ho he n a stronger state merit ot of the law than this authority will justify The fhe gentleman from Ohio said Mid that the ot of the tin State ot of New York In the case ot of no sers gers Buffalo In nn an opinion drawn by Mr Justice who wh no nOw adorns the bench hench ot of the tho Supreme by ly the way have yot ou noticed that anns am judge or author who Ino tends to sustain the post position tion of thy lilY ot of the majority ell her adorns the tho bench or is n a jurist or nn an eminent manThe The gentle gentleman man mall from Ohio says Justice h held d that a 11 provision of tho ho constitution ot o oNs N Ns w certain for u an did not bar the legislature from posing n new reasonable and proper propel I am obliged to question tine tho accuracy ey cy ot of lint It If the line gentleman from Ohio hall hail rend read tine the ot of the court In with enough to In It anything but the dita that suited his own Ule hIe he would hoe discovered that when Justice m wrote the opinion Ion there were vere no In the eon con ot of Ne ew that prescribed I read from the opinIon lon Ion hero Hore Is the first proposition This last provision preventing tint tho of n a board ot of commIssioners from one par party party ty Is cited liS as n a violation or of Article I section 3 1 ot of our constitution which 11 the dares that no member of oC this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of oC any ot of the rights ell on privileges secured to any citizen thereof unless by the law Jaw of the land or judgment or of his Peers Are there them tiny qualifications pre jre In that Is the next one The provision Is also claimed to be II a violation ot of section 6 article r which bleh declares that no tenon person shall be de ot of life lite liberty or property with without without out due ot of low law Page Is there prescribed In that The next proposition reeds still another ground ot of invalidity Is alleged b by the appellant lie Ie f says that statute conflicts with Article I 1 which t provides for tor taking ot of an oath ot of by members ot of the thO legislature and nil cx and Judicial before they enter on the duties of their le respective which oath Is therein sot forth and It is III then stated that III hi hia qualification a or any of oC public trust ea I 1 have already that Judge I has ns that an oath or test teat was wall not a It was wasa a test and an oath Is there any In that And those lire are all tine the provisions ot of the constitution or of the State ot of New York that were being construed by tine court In that cn case e eSo So I submit the original suggestion by bym m my friend from Ohio In regard to 10 that CA case e when ho he says that Justice Peck Peckham ham hold held that a provision ot of tine the cOn declaring certain for tor was not exclusive not bar baz the from Im Imposing posing new reasonable and proper can not be sustained for n a moment I R a little further to show what lie he did hold In that case Not only was there no Provision in tine the constitution ot of pv York qualification which were con but Judge In that opinion several tUnes times said that Inc he not decide It on an any such tuch ground lie says The appellant bases ints hie argument up upon rin on the proposition lUon that every ever citizen Inns hits n a right which Is protected 1 by the constitution to be regarded as eligible to In hold any am unless the constitution Lion tion has haA Itself prescribed certain quail for such uch holding The opinIon the tho fact that no qualifications were vere proscribed prescribed In Inthe the lie Constitution lIe then linen that the statute ute In this constitutional right ight It l Is not necessary In tine the view we vu take of oC thIs statute to decide upon the he or of the claim M as to the of the citizen to hold omco os made maJo b by th the appellant under tine tho ot of the Constitution We will imply tor or tine the purpose of oC this discus slon i assume It to bo correct Page In Again I Dut In our judgment legislation which creates I a bOON board ot of commissioners of oC two or more anti provides that not than II a ertain Proportion ot of the whole number of f commissioners shall J be taken from one Inc potty does not amount to nn an arbi cluston from nor to a 11 Ions not mentioned In tine the Ion IonIn In the light ot of these facts hat justl justi cation is III there for Cor the as n that Mr Ir Justice litiS aiM the contention J to cases t they he rest solely upon hlo Colorado instead of oC our State In many manT Instances In Ohio vs S 9 Ohio Stat 10 01 the court were upon the tho t of oe tine the to hold the ot commissioner and memo mem ber or of at the hoard ot of health for tor the thO city lIy ot f Cincinnati The constitution provid etl 1 that No persan shall be elected or rip to nn any office In this State unless he pOS possesses 08 tine the ot of an elector lh court distinctly distinct held hieb that The Tho defendants M as members of the police are om officers r for tor whose whole election rind appoint merit no provision Is 11 made In tine con ot of the tho State or of the United States And were frt therefore such as 18 tine the legis legislature laturo lature hind by tine the express provisions ot of tine the constitution authority to create When Vinon the created the OmNI offices oIn In question It attached to them the condition that officer should be beA beA A resident citizen for three years Ir ot of the e city In ho he shall be appointed Inel ami tuble to read And wrIte the Eng lIh ilahi language The Th Offices In question were creatures ot of tho th statute an not or of the constitution tion It is III familiar law that whatever QI ce the tho le creates It can lIn rite ato with such Buch conditions limitations qualIfications restrictions u as It l nies fit to impose Impo e w and this was nil that It vaa for tor the court to II 5 I lit in that case In upholding the validity of oC the statute It II true that It did go 10 further than that thU further than the case required and held that no implication arose e from tins language or of orthe the con constitution that other qualifies could not be added b by th the lature In so 10 tar far as the opinion goes beyond the requirements ot of this case caN It Is certainly doubtful authority It should be stated that this tinis cue case has hall been fully tull approved d In the recent case calle ot of Mason vs 1 State f 59 Ohio St l Tine The CAse ot of Darrow vs 8 S 8 Colo Coio relied op 01 is II also subject to the Allie ns ne State s B Covington RS as the theoffice office there considered wn was that ot of al 01 alderman derman the creature ot of the That is nil all there thero Is left ot of tine instances In tine the courts ot of this which the they claimed sustained this prop proposition To be Continued |
