522 



MISSOURI. 



requiring the subscription of such an oath, par- 

 took of the nature of an ex post facto law. The 

 case tried before the Supreme Court of the 

 State, at the October term of 1867, was quite 

 similar to that of the Eev. Mr. Cummings. 

 The Ilev. D. II. Murphy was indicted at the 

 December term of the Cape Girardeau Circuit 

 Court for unlawfully preaching in that county 

 "without having taken, subscribed, and filed 

 the oath known as the oath of loyalty, as pre- 

 scribed and set forth in the sixth section of the 

 second article of the constitution of the State 

 of Missouri." He was tried and convicted, and 

 a fine of $500 was imposed upon him for 

 the offence. The case was carried to the 

 Supreme Court of the State, and there the 

 judgment was reversed. Judge Holmes 

 delivered an elaborate opinion, in which he 

 recognized the authoritative force of the deci- 

 sion in the Cummings case, but gave, at length, 

 his reasons for arriving at a similar conclusion 

 with regard to the ex post facto character of the 

 enactment of the convention of 1865. He says : 



The view which regards the act as essentially penal 

 in its operation on them, as necessarily punitive in 

 character, and a sentence of punishment for past 

 conduct as criminal, must prevail, and it might justly 

 be said that it could be regarded, judicially, in no 

 other light. 



The decision of the Supreme Court of the United 

 States holds that such is the essential nature and 

 character of the enactment within the meaning of 

 the prohibitory clause. I must concede that I have 

 been unable to find satisfactory grounds on which I 

 could venture to deny the reasonableness of that 

 opinion, or refuse to accept it as an authoritative pre- 

 cedent. * * * This law, as made, is essentially 

 penal in character, is necessarily equivalent to pun- 

 ishment in the legal sense, and is a law which, by its 

 own force, declares and executes the punishment. In 

 such case I must admit that no one can be heard to 

 say not even the members (of the Convention) 

 themselves that the intention was not to punish 

 these persons for those past acts as criminal, but 

 only to found a good government and secure the 

 safety of the State ; for the saying would be a matter 

 extrinsic, and would contradict the proper scope, ope- 

 ration, and effect of the enactment itself. 



With regard to these exclusions, considered 

 in the light of qualifications for the professions 

 named in the clause providing for the applica- 

 tion of the oath, Judge Holmes holds the fol- 

 lowing language : 



I must admit that these exclusions are not of the 

 nature of qualifications at all, and the reason is that 

 they are not really intended as general laws, nor as a 

 permanent institution, either with reference to the 

 fitness of these persons for these special duties and 

 functions, or with reference to the public safety in 

 any proper sense, but are temporary disabilities im- 

 posed on a class of persons on account of their repre- 

 hensible past acts, and their apprehended future bad 

 conduct. That they were to oe temporary only is 

 sufficiently apparent from the tenor ot the constitu- 

 tion ; for though they might continue in force indefi- 

 nitely, if not repealed by the Legislature soon after 

 the time limited for that purpose, it was nevertheless 

 plainly contemplated that they would be repealed 

 after a few years. They were not expected to remain 

 a permanent part of the constitution, and were evi- 

 dently not intended as a perpetual regulation. In 

 this respect, they are clearly distinguishable from 

 those general laws and permanent "institutions of 



government which are really intended to have an 

 equal bearing upon the whole community, and upon 

 each individual, so far as in the nature of things they 

 may be applicable to him. 



Judge Wagner and Judge Tagg signified a 

 concurrence in the reversal of the judgment . 

 of the Circuit Court, but expressed a dissent 

 from much of the reasoning contained in Judge 

 Holmes's opinion. 



On the 15th of May, the Senate of Missouri 

 assembled as a high court of impeachment 

 for the trial of Walter King, Judge of the Fifth 

 Judicial Circuit, for alleged misdemeanors in the 

 discharge of his judicial duties. The principal 

 charges against Judge King are contained in 

 the following specifications of the articles of 

 impeachment : 



1. In instructing the grand jury for the body of 

 the County of Platte, aforesaid, to find no bills of in- 

 dictment against Confederate soldiers, whether they 

 belonged to th regular or irregular Confederate service 

 (embracing all bushwhackers), for any crimes they 

 might have committed while engaged in said service. 



2. In instructing the g^rand jury aforesaid, at the 

 term of the court aforesaid, to find no bills of indict- 

 ment against persons who might be charged with 

 perjury in taking the oath of loyalty as prescribed in 

 the constitution of the State of Missouri, as he would 

 not sustain any such indictments. 



The Senate convicted the judge by a vote of 

 23 to 8, and passed sentence removing him 

 from office. 



Provision was made, by an act of the Legis- 

 lature of the 12th of March, for the payment 

 of interest on the State debt. No interest had 

 been paid by the State since January, 1861, 

 and this act set aside $750,000 from the treas- 

 ury for that purpose, provided for a tax of one 

 mill to the dollar on the taxable property of 

 the State for the same object, and made further 

 appropriation from the sum due from the 

 Federal Government for money expended for 

 war purposes, to be likewise placed in the 

 hands of the commissioners of the State Inter- 

 est Fund. The sum allotted to the State of 

 Missouri for war claims amounted to $6,475,- 

 851.01, of which $6,362,279.35 have been al- 

 ready paid. The act of March 12th appropria- 

 ted $1,500,000 for a permanent school fund, 

 and $500,000 for a similar fund and for the re- 

 demption of Union military bonds. More than 

 the amount of the appropriations has been de- 

 voted to these purposes, and the amount 

 actually applied to the payment of interest is 

 $3.070,682.63. 



The regular fiscal operations of the State for 

 the year ending September 30, 1867, show the 

 following result : 



State debt proper $535,000 00 



Internal improvement debt 23,538,000 00 



War debt 48,000 00 



Unexpended surplus in the Treasury at 



the beginning of the year $3,962,808 04 



Eeceipts from all sources during the.year 7,048,006 76 



$11,010,814 80 

 Expenditures for the year 10,333,432 74 



Balance in the Treasury Oct. 1, 1867. 677,382 06 



