MISSOURI. 



591 



Court ' would proceed to hear cases ? To this 

 Mr. "Wagner responded that ' the Court ' had 

 not yet considered that matter, but would do 

 so in a few days. 



"Immediately after the eviction of Judges 

 Bay and Dryden, Gen. Coleman demanded pos- 

 session from Mr. A. W. Mead, Clerk of the Su- 

 preme Court, of the books, records, seal, etc., be- 

 longing to the court, with which order he nec- 

 essarily complied, and thus had his official ca- 

 reer as ' summarily ' interrupted as was that 

 of the Judges themselves." 



On the next day the complainants did not 

 appear before the Recorder's Court, and the 

 persons arrested were discharged. 



It was objected to these proceedings that the 

 vacating ordinance was not within the scope 

 of the act calling the Convention, and therefore 

 beyond the power of the Convention to adopt ; 

 that it had never been submitted to the people, 

 nor incorporated in or made a part of the Con- 

 stitution which had been submitted ; that it 

 was the business of the courts to pass on the 

 constitutionality of laws, and not that of the 

 Governor; that it belonged to the old court 

 and not to the new one to decide the question, 

 or the whole theory of liberty, based on a con- 

 stitutional judiciary, passes away, etc. There 

 was also an interference of the military with 

 courts in other parts of the State. Subsequently 

 a civil suit was commenced in the Circuit Court 

 by Judge Dryden against the Governor and 

 General and others for unlawful interference 

 while in the discharge of their duties, and ask- 

 ing as damages $50,000. It had not reached 

 a decision at the close of the year. 



The oath required of professional men, also 

 created much excitement. The Missouri Bap- 

 tists, at their thirteenth annual meeting, held 

 on August 19th and 20th, agreed to decline 

 taking the oath required of ministers and 

 teachers by the new Constitution. About fifty 

 members were present. The reasons for this 

 action were briefly that the oath was in conflict 

 with the Constitution of the United States ; 

 interfered with the freodom of worshipping 

 God; was ex post facto in its operations, 

 and made every minister who refused to take 

 it become a witness against himself; that the 

 oath was unjust and unequal in its operations; 

 that its purpose was to punish ministers for 

 what was really no crime against any human 

 law ; that to take it was to acknowledge an 

 authority in the State that does not belong to 

 it, and that human authority was above divine. 

 The Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis addressed 

 the following letter to his clergy : 



ST. Loms, 2Sth July, 1865. 



REVEREND SIR : Since under the new Constitution 

 a certain oath is to be exacted of priests, that they 

 may have leave to announce God's word, and officiate 

 at marriages, which oath they can in nowise take 

 without a sacrifice of ecclesiastical liberty, I have 

 judged it expedient to indicate to you my opinion in 

 the matter, that you may have before your eyes a 

 rule to be followed in a case of this delicacy. I hope 

 that the civil power will abstain from exacting such 



an oath. But should it happen otherwise, I wish you 

 to inform me of the particular circumstances of your 

 position, that I may be able to give you counsel and 

 assistance. 



I am, Rev. Sir, vour pbedient servant in the Lord, 

 t PETER RICHARD, Archbishop St. Louis. 



The Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 

 Church thus expressed his views : 



ST. Louis, August 29, 1865. 

 Editors Missouri Democrat. 



A friend has called my attention to the following in 

 your paper of Monday, the 28th : 



We learn that Bishop Hawks, of the Episcopal Church In 

 this State, has advised the clergy of his diocese to take the 

 constitutional oath, or if they cannot conscientiously do so, 

 to abandon preaching in this State. 



I do not know who authorized you to say so much. 

 My real position is this : 



I am opposed to the oalth pressed upon the clergy, 

 not because by it the State infringes upon my divine 

 commission. In my judgment it does not. If I 

 thought that it did, I would never take the oath 

 and f have taken it. My opposition is that it is retro- 

 spective in its action, and that it also singles out 

 particular classes for its application. 



My advice to all clergymen who have asked it (and 

 there are many of various Christian denominations 

 who have done so) has been always If you can take 

 the oath conscientiously, do so ; if not, then do not 

 take it. 



Of the wisdom of the Convention in framing and 

 ordering such an oath I say nothing my view is 

 manifest. I hope that it may soon be repealed, and 

 that in the mean time the civil authority will not at- 

 tempt to enforce it. 



Yours respectfully, 



C. 0. HAWKS. 



A number of prosecutions were commenced 

 against non-juring clergymen, who were in the 

 meanwhile confined in the cells of prisons. 



Members of the legal profession were also 

 required to take the oath. At the September 

 term of the criminal court in St. Louis, Judge 

 Prim, after opening the court, informed the at- 

 torneys present, that he considered it to be his 

 duty to declare, that no person would be per- 

 mitted to practise as an attorney or connsellor- 

 at-law in the court, without having taken and 

 filed the oath of loyalty prescribed by the Con- 

 stitution. In his opinion the courts had al- 

 ways been the judges of the qualifications of 

 attorneys, that is, whether they had complied 

 with the requirements of the law before en- 

 gaging in practice, and it was the duty of tho 

 courts now, as heretofore, to permit no person 

 to practice who was not a legally constituted 

 attorney. Robert McDonald then addressed 

 the court, expressing the opinion, that this ac- 

 tion amounted to a prejudgment of the rights 

 of parties who might be arraigned for trial be- 

 fore it, for a refusal to take, subscribe, and file 

 the oath. The cases set for trial were post- 

 poned one or two days, but the court pro- 

 ceeded to swear the panel of grand jurors, 

 when three of the jurors objected to being 

 sworn. One objected, that in 1861 he wa- 

 loyal to the United States, but sought to sub 

 vert the State Government under Gov. Jack- 

 son. Another was opposed to the provisions 

 of the Constitution, believed tho instrument 

 was contradictory and iu contravention to tho 



