MissoriM. 





:ioii for tlu-Ir protection find for the en- 

 in-nt of tli.- l.n\ -. At this ini-i-tin^ the 

 following iv-ohitioii was u<loptod: 



etoli;,l, That lor tin- pmd mid quiet of i- 

 and a. pledge oursclvi-s t-i ^i\c 



in nur power, to the 



ei\il . in fenvtiiiu' "lit crime and liriiiirin^ 



punishment; and wo will promptly 



-1st the. eivil officers, when called 



up. >n, in masting all persons against whom there 



rits issued, as well as to assist the officera 



in urn-sting all violators of the law. Wo also pledge 



. ery law-abiding citizen in our 



iiii<Ut . lass and position in life, from moles- 



. :iinl n-n.li-r him, so far as in our power, per- 



t'lirth sale, nt Inline. We will inform on every viola- 



: lie law, and sue out writs against him or them 



fnuu the proper officer, and aid, if required, to bring 



them to trial. 



Governor Fletcher was then desired to recall 

 the troops, which ho promised to do as soon as 

 ;iu- people should give satisfactory proof that 

 :\vs would ho enforced and the persons 

 ;i:id property of citizens secured. Soon after 

 M;ijor Montgomery WM arrested, and 1 1 10 

 troops were withdrawn. For some months the 

 course of justice was seriously interfered with 

 and ninny oases occurred of the execution of 

 Lynch law ; hut no occasion was given after 

 the lii>t months of the year for any extraordi- 

 nary action on the part of the State authorities 

 to secure the people in the enjoyment of toler- 

 :ilik> traiupiillity. 



Tho Legislature, which assemhled on the 

 ia-t Monday in December, I860, continued in 

 session until the 13th of March following. 

 Among the duties which devolved on this hody 

 was the election of a United States Senator. 

 Choice was made of Charles D. Drake, the 

 nominee of the Radical Republican members. 

 Resolutions were passed in both Houses urging 

 Congress to repeal the act appropriating money 

 to pay for the slaves enlisted in the United 

 States service. A proposition was made to 

 submit to a vote of the people an amendment 

 to the constitution, striking out the word 

 " white," but failed to pass. 



A bill was introduced into the Senate to 

 amend tho constitution so as to abolish the 

 test oath so far as it applied to ministers of the 

 Gospel, teachers, and lawyers. The question 

 of the validity of tho provision imposing this 

 "act of loyalty" was brought before the 

 Supremo Court of the State twice during the 

 year : once, at tho March term, in a case in- 

 volving its requirement as a qualification for 

 the exercise of tho elective franchise; and 

 auMin at the October term, in the case of a 

 minister of the Gospel who had refused to take 

 tho oath as a condition of performing the func- 

 tions of his profession. The first of these cases 

 was that of Francis P. Blair, Jr., who had 

 brought an action in the Circuit Court of St. 

 Louis County against the judges of an election 

 hold in the city of St. Louis on the 7th of 

 nber, 1865, for refusing to receive his 

 vote which had been offered together with an 

 oath of allegiance, though not the test oath re- 



quired by tho constitution. The case had 



brought into tip- Siipiv.M,- Court on a 

 writ of error, ami h-re the dcri-i-in of the low- 

 c to the plaintiff, was confirmed. 

 'I IK- ipic-tion of the constitutional right of the 

 Stale to embody such a rcquircm.'iit, in its or- 

 ganic law is thus discussed by Judge Wagner: 



When tho people in 1805 formed and adopted a 

 new constitution as their organic law, tin-', 

 cised an un<iui->iiuneil power an undisputed right. 

 They altered and abolished their constitution, and 

 formed a new one, in which, in pursuance of their 

 ive ri^'ht, in regulating their internal govern- 



ment, they prescribed eertain qualifications and con- 

 ditions for the exercise of the elective franchise. 



Of their perfect and exclusive right to do this, we 

 do not entertain the slightest doubt. The right to 

 vote is not vested, it is purely conventional and may 

 bo enlarged or rest ; udor withheld at pleas- 



ure and with or without fault. 



The principle of the provision in tho constitution 

 is involved in the power, and flows from the duty of 

 the State to protect itself, that is, the welfare ot the 

 people. It proceeds upon tho distinction between 

 laws passed to punish for offences, in order to pro- 

 vent their repetition, and laws passed to protect the 

 public franchises and privileges from abuse by fall- 

 ing into unworthy ana improper hands. The State 

 may not pass laws in the form or with the effect of 

 bills of attainder ex, pout facto laws or laws im- 



E airing tho obligation of contracts ; it may and has 

 ill power to pass laws restrictive, and exclusive, 

 for the preservation or promotion of the common 

 interests, as political and social emergencies may 

 from time to time require ; though in certain cases 

 disabilities may directly flow as a consequence. It. 

 should never be forgotten that the State is organized 

 for the public weal, as well as individual pur- 

 poses, and while it may not disregard and violate 

 the safeguards that are thrown around the citizen 

 for his protection by the constitution, it cannot 

 neglect to perform and do what is demanded for the 

 public good. 



It has grown into an axiom of the law, that public 

 grants are to be construed strictly. And in tne ab- 

 sence of any power expressly conceded to tho United 

 States, or where its exercise is not directly denied 

 by the Federal Constitution, the State is not to be 

 presumed in any grant to part with any of the power 

 inherent in it, for the protection and promotion of 

 tho common welfare. The power in the State to 

 preserve the general good and promote the public 

 welfare is inherent and supreme : and deny and de- 

 stroy this cardinal maxim, and tne very foundation 

 of our system is sapped, and the State is shorn of all 

 power for self-protection. 



Believing that the provision in the State constitu- 

 tion prescribing an oath for voters is not in oppo- 

 sition to the Constitution of the United States, we 

 affirm the judgment. 



The constitutionality of this oath, in the case 

 of a clergyman who ventured upon his duties 

 without complying with the requirements of 

 the constitution in this regard, had been already 

 pronounced upon by the highest judicial tri- 

 bunal in the land. Father Cummings, of Pike 

 County, had been sentenced in the State Cir- 

 cuit Court to pay a fine of five hundred dollars 

 for preaching the Gospel without having first 

 subscribed to this test oath. This sentence 

 had been sustained in the Supreme Court of 

 the State, whence the case was carried up to 

 the Supreme Court of the United States, where 

 the decision was reversed, on the ground that 

 tho provision in the constitution of Missouri, 



