TEST OATHS. 



T.'/J 



contains tho names of collectors of internal rov- 



sor.-i, rollrrtors 



find Mir \vvor-. of customs, etc., appoints! 

 ! >se of tho war in tho Southern 

 !ia\v iii t hern nblo to take literally tlm 

 >f office prescribed by the act approved 

 July 2, is 



hose officers, a considerable number, 

 >s the. l:irir-r proportion of those holding 

 subordinate positions in tho revenue depart- 

 ment, Iiavi- boon nlso unable to comply with 

 liiiremonts of the statute. When tho ap- 

 pointments wore made it was feared that it 

 woulJ bo difficult to find competent officers in 

 many of tho Southern revenue districts who 

 could take tho oath referred to ; but so impor- 

 tant did it seem to the President and tho Cabi- 

 net, for the purpose of equalizing tho public 

 bunions, that the revenue system should be es- 

 tablished throughout the Southern States with 

 ns little delay as practicable, and that the un- 

 pleasant duty of collecting taxes from an ex- 

 hausted and recently rebellions people should 

 be performed by their own citizens, that tho 

 Secretary of the Treasury did not hesitate to 

 recommend for appointment, and to appoint 

 men of whose present loyalty there was no 

 question, but who might have been, either will- 

 ingly or unwillingly, during the progress of 

 the rebellion, so connected with tho insurgent 

 States and Confederate Government as to be 

 unable to take the oath of office. 



This was not done from any disposition to 

 disregard tho law, but with an honest and sin- 

 core purpose of collecting the revenues with as 

 little trouble to the taxpayers as possible. It 

 seemed to be necessary to carry into effect the 

 revenue laws of the General Government, as 

 the country was passing from a state of war to 

 a state of peace, and the emergency seemed to 

 be too pressing to admit of delay. Until the 

 meeting of Congress it was thought that the 

 test oath might, in view of tho great objects to 

 be attained, in some cases be dispensed with, or 

 rather that persons might be permitted to hold 

 revenue offices who could take it only in a qual- 

 ified form. 



Some had held office under the insurgent au- 

 thorities as tho only means of supporting their 

 families ; others, to escape conscription, or to 

 be in better condition to resist, at the proper 

 time, Confederate rule. Not one is known to 

 have been a disunionist, or unfriendly to tho 

 Government at the commencement of the war. 

 A very slight change in tho oath a change that 

 would not cover a particle of present disloyal- 

 ty \vould enable the most of them to hold tho 

 offices they are now so acceptably filling. Great 

 loss to tho Government and great inconvenience 

 to the Department must result from the discon- 

 tinuance of their services. 



Tho Postmaster-General, in his communica- 

 tion, says, as a means of restoring the business 

 interest in the Southern States, and of aiding 

 in the reCstablishment of their constitutional 

 relations with the General Government, it was 



deemed important by tho President and Cabinet 

 that the mails should bo introduced and post- 

 office* bo reopened in these State* as rapidly a* 

 possible, to which end tho energies of the De- 

 partment were promptly and have been contin- 

 uously directed. 



Various causes have doubtless contributed to 

 tlu: failure in accomplishing all that was hoped 

 for, but that resulting from the oath pres< 1 

 by the acta of July 2, 18G2, and March 8, 1868. 

 has not been the least. As a remedy for tho 

 future, the Postmaster-General suggests a mod- 

 ification of the oath, by inserting the word 

 " voluntarily," so that the clause would read 

 " That I have neither voluntarily sought nor ac- 

 cepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions 

 of any office whatever under any authority or 

 pretended authority in hostility to the United 

 States." 



The constitutionality of the act of 1865, re- 

 quiring all persons practising in the courts of 

 the United States to take the oath presented by 

 the act of 1862, was raised and decided in sev- 

 eral district courts, among them that of Ala- 

 bama, the decision being that the said act was 

 in violation of the Constitution. The question 

 both as to the above-mentioned provision, and 

 also as to the requirement of the Missouri con- 

 stitution, came up in the Supreme Court of tho 

 United States. The case involving the provi- 

 sion in the Missouri constitution was that of 

 John A. Gumminga, in the State of Missouri, 

 and is thus stated by Mr. Justice Field in ren- 

 dering the decision : 



This case comes before us on a writ of error to the 

 Supreme Court of Missouri, and involves a consid- 

 eration of the test oath imposed by the constitution 

 of that State. The plaintiff in error is a priest of the 

 Roman Catholic Church, and was indicted and con- 

 victed, in one of the circuit courts of that State, of 

 the crime of teaching and preaching, as a priest and 

 minister of that religious denomination, without 

 having first taken the oath, and was sentenced to pay 

 a fine of $500, and to be committed to jail until the 

 same was paid. On appeal to the Supreme Court of 

 the State, the judgment was affirmed. 



The same questions were involved and argued 

 in tho case of Alexander J. P. Garesche, in the 

 State of Missouri. 



The law of 1865, requiring the oath to be 

 taken by attorneys, came before the court on a 

 petition of A. H. Garland, which is also stated 

 by Mr. Justice Field, as follows: 



At the December term of 1860, the petitioner was 

 admitted as an attorney and counsellor of this court, 

 and took and subscribed the oath then required. By 

 tho second rule, as it then existed, it was only requi- 

 site to the admission of attorneys and counsellors of 

 this court that they should have been such officers for 

 tin- three previous' years, in the highest courts of the 

 to which they respectively belonged, and that 

 their private and professional character should ap- 

 pear to be fair. In March, 186"), this rule was changed 

 by the addition of a clause requiring the administra- 

 tion of tho oath in conformity with the act of Congress. 



In May, 1861, the State of Arkansas, of which tho 



petitioner was a citizen, passed an ordinance of se- 



ii which purported to withdraw the State from 



the Union, and afterward, in the same rear, br 



another ordinance, attached herself to the so-called 



