[Syllabus from pages 277-279 intentionally omitted]
IN January, 1865, a convention of representatives of the people of Missouri assembled at St. Louis, for the purpose of amending the constitution of the State. The representatives had been elected in November, 1864. In April, 1865, the present constitution–amended and revised from the previous one–was adopted by the convention; and in June, 1865, by a vote of the people. The following are the third, sixth, seventh, ninth, and fourteenth sections of the second article of the constitution:
SEC. 3. At any election held by the people under this Constitution, or in pursuance of any law of this State, or under any ordinance or by-law of any municipal corporation, no person shall be deemed a qualified voter, who has ever been in armed hostility to the United States, or to the lawful authorities thereof, or to the government of this State; or has ever given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to persons engaged in any such hostility; or has ever, in any manner, adhered to the enemies, foreign or domestic, of the United States, either by contributing to them, or by unlawfully sending within their lines, money, goods, letters, or information; or has ever disloyally held communication with such enemies; or has ever advised or aided any person to enter the service of such enemies; or has ever, by act or word, manifested his adherence to the cause of such enemies, or his desire for their triumph over the arms of the United States, or his sympathy with those engaged in exciting or carrying on rebellion against the United States; or has ever, except under overpowering compulsion, submitted to the authority, or been in the service, of the so-called 'Confederate States of America;' or has ever left this State, and gone within the lines of the armies of the so-called 'Confederate States of America,' with the purpose of adhering to said States or armies; or has ever been a member of, or connected with, any order, society, or organization, inimical to the government of the United States, or to the government of this State; or has ever been engaged in guerilla warfare against loyal inhabitants of the United States, or in that description of marauding commonly known as 'bush-whacking;' or has ever knowingly and willingly harbored, aided, or countenanced any person so engaged; or has ever come into or left this State, for the purpose of avoiding enrolment for or draft into the military service of the United States; or has ever, with a view to avoid enrolment in the militia of this State, or to escape the performance of duty therein, or for any other purpose, enrolled himself, or authorized himself to be enrolled, by or before any officer, as disloyal, or as a southern sympathizer, or in any other terms indicating his disaffection to the Government of the United States in its contest with rebellion, or his sympathy with those engaged in such rebellion; or, having ever voted at any election by the people in this State, or in any other of the United States, or in any of their Territories, or held office in this State, or in any other of the United States, or in any of their Territories, or under the United States, shall thereafter have sought or received, under claim of alienage, the protection of any foreign government, through any consul or other officer thereof, in order to secure exemption from military duty in the militia of this State, or in the army of the United States: nor shall any such person be capable of holding in this State any office of honor, trust, or profit, under its authority; or of being an officer, councilman, director, trustee, or other manager of any corporation, public or private, now existing or hereafter established by its authority; or of acting as a professor or teacher in any educational institution, or in any common or other school; or of holding any real estate or other property in trust for the use of any church, religious society, or congregation. But the foregoing provisions, in relation to acts done against the United States, shall not apply to any person not a citizen thereof, who shall have committed such acts while in the service of some foreign country at war with the United States, and who has, since such acts, been naturalized, or may hereafter be naturalized, under the laws of the United States and the oath of loyalty hereinafter prescribed, when taken by any such person, shall be considered as taken in such sense.
SEC. 6. The oath to be taken as aforesaid shall be known as the Oath of Loyalty, and shall be in the following terms:
'I, A. B., do solemnly swear that I am well acquainted with the terms of the third section of the second article of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, adopted in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and have carefully considered the same; that I have never, directly or indirectly, done any of the acts in said section specified; that I have always been truly and loyally on the side of the United States against all enemies thereof, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States, and will support the Constitution and laws thereof as the supreme law of the land, any law or ordinance of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that I will, to the best of my ability, protect and defend the Union of the United States, and not allow the same to be broken up and dissolved, or the government thereof to be destroyed or overthrown, under any circumstances, if in my power to prevent it; that I will support the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and that I make this oath without any mental reservation or evasion, and hold it to be binding on me.'
SEC. 7. Within sixty days after this Constitution takes effect, every person in this State holding any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the Constitution or laws thereof, or under any municipal corporation, or any of the other offices, positions, or trusts, mentioned in the third section of this Article, shall take and subscribe the said oath. If any officer or person referred to in this section shall fail to comply with the requirements thereof, his office, position, or trust, shall, ipso facto, become vacant, and the vacancy shall be filled according to the law governing the case.
SEC. 9. No person shall assume the duties of any state, county, city, town, or other office, to which he may be appointed, otherwise than by a vote of the people; nor shall any person, after the expiration of sixty days after this Constitution takes effect, be permitted to practise as an attorney or counsellor at law; nor, after that time, shall any person be competent as a bishop, priest, deacon, minister, elder, or other clergyman of any religious persuasion, sect, or denomination, to teach, or preach, or solemnize marriages, unless such person shall have first taken, subscribed, and filed said oath.
SEC. 14. Whoever shall, after the times limited in the seventh and ninth sections of this Article, hold or exercise any of the offices, positions, trusts, professions, or functions therein specified, without having taken, subscribed, and filed said oath of loyalty, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine, not less than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and whoever shall take said oath falsely, by swearing or by affirmation, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of perjury, and be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two years.
In September, A.D. 1865, after the adoption of this constitution, the Reverend Mr. Cummings, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, was indicted and convicted in the Circuit Court of Pike County, in the State of Missouri, of the crime of teaching and preaching in that month, as a priest and minister of that religious denomination, without having first taken the oath prescribed by the constitution of the State; and was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and to be committed to jail until said fine and costs of suit were paid.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment was affirmed; and the case was brought to this court on writ of error, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.
Mr. David Dudley Field, for Mr. Cummings, plaintiff in error:
My argument will first be directed to that part of the oath which affirms that the person taking it has never 'been in armed hostility to the United States, or to the lawful authorities thereof, or to the government of this State;' . . . and has never 'given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to persons engaged in any such hostility;' . . . and has never 'been a member of or connected with any order, society, or organization inimical to the government of the United States, or to the government of this State.' If the imposition of this is repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States, the whole oath must fall; for all parts of it must stand or fall together. Mr. Cummings was convicted, because he had not taken the oath, as a whole. If there be any part of it which he was not bound to take, his conviction was illegal. The oath is not administered by portions, and there is no authority so to administer it.
My first position is, that this provision of the constitution of Missouri is repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States; because it requires or countenances disloyalty to the United States.
Stripping the case of everything not immediately pertaining to the first position, the oath required may be considered as if it contained only these words:
'I hereby declare, on oath, that I have never been in armed hostility to the government of the State of Missouri, nor given aid, comfort, countenance, or support to persons engaged in any such hostility, and have never been a member of or connected with any organization inimical to the government of this State.'
This is not an oath of loyalty to the United States. The government of Missouri has been, in fact, hostile to the United States. This is matter of history. Being in armed hostility to this hostile State government was an act of loyalty to the United States: an act not to be punished, but to be rewarded.
The loyal citizens of the State were obliged to array themselves against its government; they did so; they took up arms against it; they seized its camp and overthrew its forces. Had it not been for this act of hostility the State might have been drawn into the abyss of secession. It was, therefore, an act which was not only lawful but which was required of the citizen by his allegiance to the United States.
The Constitution and laws of the United States require allegiance and active support from every citizen, whatever may be the attitude of the State government. The difference between the Constitution and the Confederation consists in this, chiefly, that under the Constitution the United States act directly upon the citizen, and not upon the State. What the United States lawfully require must be done, though it be the seizure of the State capitol. The State of Missouri could not subject the plaintiff in error to any loss or inconvenience for giving, in 1861, a cup of coffee to the soldiers who under General Lyon marched out to St. Louis to take Camp Jackson.
Let us consider, in the second place, the tendency of this oath, in its relation to possible occurrence. It certainly is possible for the government of a State to be hostile to the United States. The governments of the eleven States lately in rebellion were so. If the legislature of South Carolina were to pass a law excluding from the pulpit and the offices of religious teachers every person who has been, at any time during the late war, 'connected with any organization inimical to the government' of South Carolina, that law would be held disloyal and unconstitutional. Suppose the legislature of South Carolina were to go further, and enact that no person, white or black, should ever vote in that State, who, during the war, gave aid, comfort, or countenance to persons engaged in armed hostility to the government of South Carolina, would not every lawyer pronounce such a law utterly void?
If such an oath were required in Tennessee, the present President of the United States could not take it, and would be disqualified. If it were required in Virginia, more than one of our generals and admirals would be disqualified. And so of thousands of other citizens of the States lately in rebellion, who fought in the Union ranks, and opposed the governments of their own States.
There may be collisions between the Federal and the State governments, not breaking out, as the last has done, into flagrant war. A State government may attempt to resist the execution of a judgment of a Federal court; and the President may be obliged to call out the militia to assist the marshal. In such event, every man in the ranks will be in armed hostility to the government of the State. But the State cannot make him suffer for it.
This results from the rule of the Constitution, that the instrument itself, and the laws made in pursuance of it, are the supreme law of the land; and whatever obstructs or impairs, or tends to obstruct or impair, their free and full operation is unconstitutional and void.
The second position which I take is, that the provision imposing this oath as a condition of continuing to preach or teach as a minister of the Gospel, is repugnant to that part of the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States which prohibits the States from passing 'any bill of attainder' or 'ex post facto law.'
Here, again, let us take a particular part of the oath, and refer to so much as affirms that the person taking it has never, 'by act or word, manifested his . . . sympathy with those . . . engaged in . . . carrying on rebellion against the United States.' Making a aimple sentence of this portion, it would read thus:
'I declare, on oath, that I have never, by act or word, manifested my sympathy with those engaged in rebellion against the United States.'
It may be assumed that previous to the adoption of this Constitution it had not been declared punishable or illegal to manifest, by act or word, sympathy with those who were drawn into the Rebellion. It would be strange, indeed, if a minister of the Gospel, whose sympathies are with all the children of men–the good and the sinful, the happy and the sorrowing–might not manifest such sympathy by an act of charity or a word of consolation. We will start, then, with the assumption that the act which the plaintiff in error is to affirm that he has not done was at that time lawful to be done.
Test oaths, in general, have been held odious in modern ages, for two reasons: one, because they were inquisitorial; and the other, because they were used as instruments of proscription and cruelty. In both respects they are contrary to the spirit, at least, of our institutions, and are indefensible, except when applied to matters outside of the domain of rights, and when prospective in their operation. Whatever the people may give or withhold at will, they may have a constitutional right to burden with any condition they please. This is at once the origin and extent of the rule.
When applied to past acts, another principle interposes its shield; that is, that no person can justly be made to accuse himself. This is incorporated in the fifth amendment, in the following words:
'No person . . . shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.'
And although this prohibition is in terms applied to criminal cases, it cannot be evaded by making that civil in form which is essentially criminal in character.
Retrospective test oaths, that is to say, oaths that the persons taking them have not theretofore done certain things, are almost unknown.
Among the constitutional guarantees against the abuse of Federal power thrown around the American citizen, are these three: First, he cannot be punished till judicially tried; second, he cannot be tried for an act innocent when committed; and, third, when tried he cannot be made to bear witness against himself.
Two of these guarantees, and the last two, are set also against the abuse of State power.
The prohibition to pass an ex post facto law is, in the sense of the Constitution, a prohibition to pass any law which 'renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed.' The question in the present case, therefore, becomes simply this: Is it a punishment to deprive a Christian minister of the liberty of preaching and teaching his faith? What is punishment? The infliction of pain or privation. To inflict the penalty of death, is to inflict pain and deprive of life. To inflict the penalty of imprisonment, is to deprive of liberty. To impose a fine, is to deprive of property. To deprive of any natural right, is also to punish. And so is it punishment to deprive of a privilege.
Depriving Mr. Cummings of the right or privilege, whichever it may be called, of preaching and teaching as a Christian minister, which he had theretofore enjoyed, and of acting as a professor or teacher in a school or educational institution, was in effect a punishment.
It is not necessary to inquire whether it was intended as a punishment. If the legislature may punish a citizen, by deprivation of office or place, on the ground that his continuing to hold it would be dangerous to the State, then every punishment, by deprivation of political or civil rights, is taken out of the category of prohibited legislation. Congress and the State legislatures–for in this respect they lie under the same prohibition–can pass retroactive laws at will, depriving the citizen of everything but his life, liberty, and accumulated capital.
The imposition of this oath was, however, intended as a punishment. This is evident from its history and its circumstances. It is patent to all the world that the object of the exclusion was to affect the person, and not the profession. Mr. Cummings may possibly, at some moment during the last five years, have manifested, by act or word, his sympathy with those engaged in carrying on rebellion against the United States; he may have given alms to the wounded rebel prisoners lying in our hospitals, or he may have spoken to them words of consolation; but no reason can be assigned, from all that, why he should not solemnize marriage or teach the ten commandments; nor can any man arrive at the belief that the convention which devised this constitution had any such notion.
Let us turn now to the other prohibition, that against passing any 'bill of attainder.' This expression is generic, and includes not only legislative acts to punish for felonies, but every legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the offence be less than felony, the act is usually called a bill of pains and penalties.
It is not necessary that the persons to be affected by a bill of attainder should be named in the bill. The attainder passed in the 28th year of Henry VIII, against the Earl of Kildare and others (chap. 18, A. D. 1536), enacted that 'all such persons which be, or heretofore have been comforters, abettors, partakers, confederates, or adherents unto the said late earl, &c., in his or their false and traitorous acts and purposes, shall in likewise stand and be attainted, adjudged, and convicted of high treason.'
It is therefore certain, that if Mr. Cummings had been by name designated in the contitution of Missouri, and thereby declared to be deprived of his right to preach as a minister of religion, or to teach in a seminary of learning, for the reason that he had done some of the acts mentioned in the oath, such an attempt would have been in contravention of the prohibition against passing a bill of attainder; and it is equally certain, that if he had been thereunder judicially convicted for doing the same things, being not punishable when done, the conviction would have been in contravention of the other prohibition against passing an ex post facto law.
Does it make any difference that these results are effected by means of an oath, or its tender and refusal? There is only this difference, that these means are more odious than the other. The legal result must be the same, if there is any force in the maxim, that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly; or as Coke has it, in the 29th chapter of his Commentary upon Magna Charta, 'Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne, per quod devenitur ad illud.'
The constitutional prohibition was intended to protect every man's rights against that kind of legislation which seeks either to inflict a penalty without a trial or to inflict a new penalty for an old matter. Of what avail will be the prohibition, if it can be evaded by changing a few forms? It is unquestionably beyond the competency of the State of Missouri, by any legislation, organic or statutory, to enact in so many words, that if Mr. Cummings on some ocasion, before it was made punishable, manifested by an act or a word sympathy with the rebels, therefore he shall, upon trial and conviction thereof, be deprived of the right (or privilege) which he has long enjoyed, of preaching and teaching as a Christian minister. It must be equally incompetent to enact, that all those Christian ministers, without naming them, who thus acted, shall be thus deprived. And this is because it is prohibited to the State to pass an ex post facto law. It is also unquestionably beyond the competency of the State, to enact in so many words, that because Mr. Cummings, on some occasion, after it was made punishable, manifested such sympathy, therefore he shall, without trial and conviction thereof, be deprived of his profession. It must be equally incompetent to enact that all those Christian ministers who have thus acted shall be thus deprived. And this because it is prohibited to the State to pass a bill of attainder.
It does not help this kind of legislation that its taking effect was made to depend on the neglect or refusal to take a prescribed oath; nor help it, to declare that the omission to take the oath is deemed a confession of guilt. If Mr. Cummings had even admitted in the presence of the convention his alleged complicity, that would not have dispensed with a judicial trial.
The legal positions taken on the part of Mr. Cummings may be thus restated. He is punished by deprivation of his profession, for an act not punishable when it was committed, and by a legislative instead of a judicial proceeding. If this is held to be constitutional because it is not done directly, but indirectly, through the tender and refusal of an oath, so contrived as to imply, if declined, a confession of having committed the act, then the prohibition may be evaded at pleasure. You cannot imagine an instance of oppression, that the Constitution was designed to prevent, which may not be effected by this means. Suppose the case of a man tried for treason, and acquitted by a jury. The legislature may nevertheless enact, that if the person acquitted by a jury does not take an oath that he is innocent, he shall be deprived of political and civil rights or privileges. Suppose that the legislature of New York were to pass an act disqualifying from preaching the Gospel, or healing the sick, or practising at the bar, all who during the last year were 'connected with any organization inimical' to the administration of the State government. Such an act would of course be adjudged inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. But suppose, instead of passing the law in this form, it should be in the form of requiring an oath from every person desiring to preach the Gospel, or to heal the sick, or practise at the bar, that he had not been connected with such an organization, would that make the case any better? You can punish in two ways: you can charge with the alleged crime, and proving it, punish for it; or you can require the party to purge himself on oath; and if he refuses, punish him by exclusion from a right, privilege, or employment.
Mr. Montgomery Blair filed a brief, on the same side, and after citing several authorities, and enforcing some of the arguments of Mr. Field, thus referred especially to the opinions of Alexander Hamilton.
Mr. John C. Hamilton, in his 'History of the Republic of the United States,'*fn1
'The animosity natural to the combatants in a civil conflict, the enormities committed by the Tories, when the scale of war seemed to incline in their favor, or where they could continue their molestations with impunity; the inroads and depredations which they made on private property and on the persons of non-combatants, and the harsh and cruel councils of which they were too often the authors, appeared to place them beyond the pale of humanity. This was merely the popular feeling.
'In the progress of the conflict, and particularly in its earliest periods, attainder and confiscation had been resorted to generally . . . as a means of war; but it was a fact important to the history of the revolting colonies, that acts prescribing penalties usually offered to the persons against whom they were directed the option of avoiding them by acknowledging their allegiance to the existing government.'
But there were exceptions to this wise policy. In New York, especially, there was a formidable party who indulged the worst feelings and went to the greatest extremes. The historian of the Republic thus narrates the matter:
'Civil discord,' says this author, 'striking at the root of each social relation, furnished pretexts for the indulgence of malignant passions; and the public good, that oft abused pretext, was interposed as a shield to cover offences which there were no laws to restrain. The frequency of abuse created a party interested in its continuance and exemption from punishment, which, at last, became so strong that it rendered the legislature of the State subservient to its views, and induced the enactment of laws attainting almost every individual whose connections subjected him to suspicion, who had been quiescent, or whose possessions were large enough to promise a reward to this criminal cupidity.'
'Two bills followed. One was entitled, 'An act declaring a certain description of persons without the protection of the laws, and for other purposes therein mentioned.' On its being considered, a member, a violent partisan, . . . moved an amendment prescribing a test oath, which was incorporated in the act. It disfranchised the loyalists forever. The Council of Revision rejected this violent bill, on the ground that the 'voluntary remaining in a country overrun by the enemy,' an act perfectly innocent, was made penal, and was retrospective, contrary to the received opinions of all civilized nations, and even the known principles of common justice, and was highly derogatory to the honor of the State, and totally inconsistent with the public good.'
The act nevertheless was passed. In regard to the test oath, General Hamilton said:
'A share in the sovereignty of the State which is exercised by the citizens at large in voting at the elections, is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It is that right by which we exist, as a free people, and it will certainly therefore never be admitted that less ceremony ought to be used in divesting any citizen of that right than in depriving him of his property. Such a doctrine would ill suit the principles of the Revolution which taught the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty, or, in other words, their right to a share in the government. Let me caution against precedents which may in their consequences render our title to this great privilege precarious.'
General Hamilton further remarks:
'The advocates of the bill pretend to appeal to the spirit of Whigism, while they endeavored to put in motion all the furious and dark passions of the human mind. The spirit of Whigism is generous, humane, beneficent, and just. These men inculcate revenge, cruelty, persecution, and perfidy. The spirit of Whigism cherished legal liberty, holds the rights of every individual sacred, condemns or punishes no man without regular trial and conviction of some crime declared by antecedent laws, reprobates equally the punishment of the citizen by arbitrary acts of the legislature as by the lawless combinations of unauthorized individuals, while these men are the advocates for expelling a large number of their fellow-citizens, unheard, untried, or, if they cannot effect this, they are for disfranchising them in the face of the Constitution, without the judgment of their peers and contrary to the law of the land. . . . Nothing is more common, than for a free people in times of heat and violence to gratify momentary passions by letting into the government principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disfranchisement, disqualification, and punishments by acts of the legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure, by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the voters to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or oligarchy. If it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense. . . . The people are sure to be losers in the event, whenever they suffer a departure from the rules of general and equal justice, or from the true principles of universal liberty.'
There is another sentiment of the great statesman and lawgiver which may be deemed not inappropriate to the ...