Show CULLUM CONQUERED ERED a ta Z by the belr brighter alt er brain aud better sense of senator brown of georry Geor tl rf who scathes tho luckew senator with din o of bis his r sarcasm knocks theS oil olt of lilain lill bill anil au if nob 1 y the rights of nell iu m liberty C 1 i T llight the ipha sevil na n act aa adain admin ia terel iff isu ii lif of ahe c provision that no one fitall by be compelled to bo b a witness list it insel f in law a crimiel cri criminal mill 11 cao cale rile able atul and accurate rate a authority above we seem seems tn vp put tills 1 be yond doubt no one shall be h held e 1 d to answer I 1 tho ap i piter f will have a n ten tell dency arf expose him blin tb enal ty or to any kind aud sad the supreme court lias has hell held that the oath itself is 18 punishment or to a ini ninal char charge geor or toa forfeiture cf W lofstate boF estate state anu na inference anfe rence of the af the cliar carpo 0 ia Is permitted to be dr drawe wu from his refusal to answer ahe edmunds att act aa as executed requires hits to answer un on oath when iho answer ain if in the will expose him to penal liability will ex boie pose him min in the langu language sige of the su he M states bt ates to ill the tile forfeiture of fis his estate in ili ills ceif lie holds one the act set is therefore plainly and palpably in conflict conflict with the tile provision of the constitution last referred to in 4 dover dever N NC C reports it is held hold that a public office is the subject of ro erty perty corporeal or ere C fram which w ielli a man ran earn a and make gain the office is created for a public pur purpose pobe tut it t is aai conferred on a particular inan and nd accepted by leini as a source of individual emolument and to the extent of that emolument it is private proper tyas its much as tile lands lie tills v artie pr a debt that la Is ing toi lim fi I 1 a handis K antici I 1 bals rean S page Pa e 31 the chief justice says ea B AO office is as much a species of property at as anything else elso capable of being held or owned and to deprive tg or y withhold it ilisan isan aich the lascari edress in a any bilter w rons again agi he be L says rays page 31 vo wo need not cite authorities to brov that by tho un no one t an royo bo del deprived rived of the right t to exer else or hold a civil ohice office but by the judgment of his peers as wo have at i eady show ti that an office is s a species of property A an n office is an estate which may mabo be yby life tir r for aberm a term of years ing pie sure that estate is property and the constitution of the knitel united states says no one shall bo be deprived of property without due process of law it matters not whether it is attempted tu to be done lone by means of a test oath compelling compel linit a party to crim binate himself or in whatever imaginable ab 1 I funn furin other than by due process of law it 19 Is null and void vid whatever may be the meant means resorted resort pd to for I 1 its is accomplishment what p biwer then has Con Coni Kresa eress to deprive any ally man gif f hia his property in ili hia onice simply because lie refuges refuses to swear m wh th lit has or haa has not violated tha the cria dual law of the land w lien la le ban has neither been charged with indicted or convicted fonviL ted of any such vio lations I 1 d n that thatis it has any budi such right is in the il law as expounded led bv by i hf he authorities and is absurd within and I 1 know w of no courts which illch COU could id atheni tilt in in thu tile enforcement of 1 uny ally such the statute is A cullity anil anti inist in my opinion be ohead t oh eld whenever or wherever it id is brought in question before any intel lint court in ill support of tho the position that a wa a teat tem oath alft do a citizen of hla ills right to hold ollice is u penal onal one I 1 refer the tsen ot a ate 0 tot Isi e va raab of leich I 1 ils ava VW reports and the tile casa of donley I 1 7 11 A is reports each of i liese states had paced pa aed stringent sits a ti dell g and have prescribed an oath to bo be taken ia in virginia Vircinia by byall all of the tile state government and avil in Aln lama by al all state off ivers and practising practicing that thit t ach tach t had not before engaged in a duel aud would never engage engum n one onel lie remained in tle office in each case the app applicant call t moved to be admitted to the bar of the tile supreme court with out taking takina the oath and in each case t the lie court ah sustained stained the motion the decisions are but us as they are ver ler all not apologize for flyr rea reading ii por portions tiong of them to tile senate jud and the tile point to which I 1 referred I 1 invite the tile attention of the senate especially to tile le following language of the judges in Leili 8 caw case page roane ronne who was wall greatly distIn Aul fur liia his ability says however tit the e object ortho of tho a highly lii lily penal law la and anti must be con coll strictly it is ii penal in a per so gon to upon datil by all alie third auction section not only ill in relation to bla past ont duct and resola atun but alo al nl w o fo abe state stat cof of it his is winda Q tima promising that tills abot is ili highly illy an ach d penal I 1 aill ill the of the rules fr arc illet chig penal statutes proceed to apply it to tile tase cast bufore ua us judee judge Flemin sr io a the same caso raso aa 3 T th the itce ct under consideration beina a compulsory y law however ho weer sain Ea lutar tary il it may way be in impo posing aine on oil the officers of f of oath unknown to in the tile forider law of or llie the stale state or of tho united unite I 1 though hero be no moil pecuniary ilia ry penalty 1 those these to MOO the oath therrin therein prescribed I 1 cannot but consider 1 ier it t as Is prescribed a penal enal statute and anti as such sn h 1 must give it a strict interpretation again he lie says admitting Admit tinz I 1 hat that attorney attorney ys s are comprehended prell ended in the net act it lias has or rought ought t tr havo have a prospective and not retro betro app etive operation and anti cannot affect officers of any description av hinted to offlie priar to iho tile passage of the act in a caso oase 7 porter WO judge thwaite says 1 I have omitted ornit ted any argument ari ament to 1 low ii bial 1 irai ion front office r from the pursuit of a lawful avocation ia is a punishment that it baw Is too evident to n r billu 3 aratin n i ay be ane questioned rationed whether w bethe hethe r any aly ingenuity could deviso devise any penalty alt which would operate more forcibly un on society again hasy hg mayji A catiz citizen n is informed inform pd by the law laws odthe of lie stale he lie is entitled to 0 aspire to any office or pursue any othar oth r avoca illik hi chany any other citizen can yet when hp herit f about to enter in the or avocation avocation he be is required td swear to of ofa a particular crime it then becomes evident that if hea hcan cannot nut tr truly aly take tle the oath required he Is included can it bo be doubted jitian for all the purposes bf the tile the guilt bof f the individual is ascertained in what does it pin the general enactment m ent that sk a candidate for office shall pe bo required to prove and establish estabi ish his innocence of a specified crime 1 admitting a person to be guilty ho lie ia Is neither accused tried nor convicted by any tribunal tri buhal 1 downto the laws yei yf the he is punished with unerring plinty t acty and the utmost celerity his is made liis ills sole accuser and judge his punishment corns com bences with the commiss commission iori of the tile crime and terminates only when he ceases to exist he lie Is excluded from the sy sympathy of hi his peers speers no legal dou doubt bt can call intervene to produce ce his ills acquittal ari ad error of bifi judgment in bolves his soul in the tile awful guilt of perjury or punishes him without built guilt I 1 have no hesitation in declaring that th tills Is act provides a mode of ascertaining and anti punish punishing na guilt which wille 11 is not only unwarranted bythe constitution but is also in direct contravention traven tion of several of the most important provisions oatlie of tile declaration of by which the liberties and privileges of the citizens are guarded when nice it ia admit led ted or proved that a citizen lias has a right righetto to to office or to pursue any lawful avocation it seems to me tio impossible that aerah be legall fd de priced of that right by a punishment for an offense committed without a trial by jury and I 1 can perceive no sound distinction between a in law W which deprives deprive a one of his rigi right 1 t without a tria trial and that which al certaine cert Ains and slid puni hes his guilt by an illegal mode of trial ho ile then refers to the governors righetto t to grant pardons and says we can not pre presume silme that the tile general assembly intended by this act to interfere with the constitutional prerogative of mercy vested vestel in the executive yet th is aeto act if constitutional all imposes a penalty which can not be ren remitted I 1 bitted and idich inflicts tb a pun punishment ah m ent beyond the reach of executive clemen clemene cyM yh 1 in case judge ormond sa says ye cafe pa e this is a highly penal law it excludes unless its terms are complied with all persons from practicing practising as attorneys and counselors at luw law ia in tho courts of this state it must therefore receive a strict construction ron fionin in accordance with well dished principle and the adith authority rity to pass it be t clearly learly and fairly di discoverable s cov from the constitution and on n pago page 38 atia it Is so offensive to the first principles if justice to require a man to give evidence against himself in a 6 penal casa case that independent of ff the constitutional tut ional illier interdict dirt no one in this en lightened atlo u aill ill be te found to catu cato tho the principle 1 betit but it may be mid euld this is notecase not notA case of ahll kind au as no et or punishment is the consequence of a refusal to take tho lio oath against dus ing bat but are not the results the same punishment follows from the or is imposed a consequence OM of till ence econ aali ingenuity make A i between A adi 1 inflicted in thia mo modo fut 0 13 a a cun consequence sequence of a re refusal to take the tha oath by closing clo ein one of the avenues to wealth and dune fame and a positive pecuniary mulct if there Is s a I 1 think it ep in favoron the letter latter eo so far as the amount or weight of the tile penalty could affect the decia decision bion on of tho CAM ou on page with to the opinion of others who may differ from me I 1 think that tho tile r requisition L by the legislature in ill subs substance tance and anti effect the a applicant for fora a license to give evidence a ainest himself liliu self and that if not within the letter asat least within the words odthe of the prohibition he very vety foundation of which is that over every ono one Is presumed to be innocent till the f I 1 p contrary al alpearl ap peara in same case i to the fact that the statute under consideration rendered any ona one engaged in selling spirituous liau liquore 0 ra an incompetent juror and authorized the question to ba be propounded to him win and says thu tills law authorizes tho court to inquire of the juror who may he ke challenged on this account I 1 lift is true tho tile law mi he nuy may decline to 1 b but ut what then esthe IB the fact to ho ile proved pro cd 1 by other evidence no is considered ps bif clr orient grouf and he lie lj 11 L ac at aleis tu answer if he doaa not wish lu be excluded as unworthy to sit JIB asa a juror rot or iles il es nut wish to ba consider Z ed as coot arned ned in a which may lie be considered aa as infamous the maxim law recognized by ly tile constitution is that every map la lis presumed to t bo be lu innocent until he lie N brov 4 to bo guilty tho tile whole spirit law appears to melq aci at valance Vai ance v lt lillio property aai ug well ai as person tho tile legislature lias has no right by an act to confiscate 1 tho the property of tho the citizen vow now mr president president I 1 leg beg the senate to bear in in mind that the two cases just referred to were pre precisely cisel similar simi larto to thu the case cow now und under er consi consideration y era tion the tile statutes of alabama and of virginia were aimed adint t dueling just as the edmunds act la is aimed against bigamy ti amy the means resorted to for the suppression of the vice and the tile punishment of tho the offender were the same in each case a test oath which attorneys at law in the one case and anti cers of the state in the tile other were required to take swearing that they had not and would not engage in lit a duel etc in the case before the senate alike a like teat test oath is applied to a citizen of utah requiring him to swear that he la is not a bigam lit or a polygamist ht and the commission appointed under the act requires his ills oath to cover all his 1118 past pas life if hc hag has ever at any time been guilty though it may have been boore before fore the passa e of the act by congress 51 re IT S making bigamy bigamy a crime in lit utah or if the case occurred since the pat pas gage of the law though it mav may have long since been barred barred by the statute of limitations still he la Is required to swear that he ehver committed the act or bo ito la Is driven from the pollyand polla and ehlend the right to bold hold office As already stated the supreme court of the united states held the lawyers test oath to be lional they also held the test oath which applied to ministers of the gospel and other officer cers illi unconstitutional the supreme court of virginia held the dueling teat est oath uncoil unconstitutional and the supreme court of alabama held a like test oath unconstitutional and I 1 apprehend there Is no united states court nor is there any respectable courton court of any state in the union that would hold abe th edmunds act as construed by the commission constitutional athe test oath similar cases was unconstitutional and was so adjudged by courts of the highest authority how can the edmunds act similar in all i its I 1 a ob objects acts and ims tims t be held constitutional dional by any good lawyer by any competent court by congress or by the country butt must notice tile two remaining constitutional objections the constitution of lie united states denies nii m to congram Cons reas the power to pass any bill attainder of the supreme court of the united states slates has hu held lild that the acts ess prescribing the test oaths above mentioned were bills of 0 pains and und penalties inthe in the nature of a bill of attainder atta luder and 04 such finch inhibited by what Is a lilt of attainder 7 A bill b of at ta inder as I 1 understand it ia Is a budi cial by parliament or con greb grest in oilier other w bails it ig is a legislative t ve of judicial power as its when parliament passed a bill to attaint A 11 13 of high treason and directed his execution and tho the confiscation of his estate this act is in tho tile nature of a bill of attainder attal fider it does not attaint tho tile mention monition who refuses refu eie to take the test oath of high treason but it does assume judicial functions and confiscate h his is p property r 0 p erty in his office without judicial 1 ci a I 1 t trial or the judgment of flany any court it usurps the power that hat pro properly belongs belong to the courts alone of or determining t the question ot ol the guilt or innocence of the accused I 1 may be told that the british parliament centuries ago enacted test oaths and that no man was allowed to bold hold odice office unless ho he had hail taken |