The New era. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1865-1871, 1865-11-02

Associated in sentiment with them, as
regards the value of the Union, I could
not, yet, adopt their mode of recon-
struction-and upon SO fundamental n
principle as that under consideration, I
could not allow my previous associations
to influence me to reject those schemes
of reconciliation and REIMBURSEMENT of
the deranged machinery of civil society,
which all the developments of the policy
of the Administration disclosed to be
that which met it's approval. Ny read
ing Of all history but confirmed the
wisdom and craftsmanship of that policy
that is to say, that this having been
the Governments war, and not that of
States, or people, it must be settled
upon the principles of pacification, which
conflict of such gigantic dimensions,
whether between independent powers or
not, rendered necessity, in order to the
accomplishment of the great results of
peace, unity, prosperity and safety.
Entertaining these sentiments, ex-
press it, with Difference, as my delibe-
ratio opinion, that, if for no other reason,
the recognition of the principle of that
amendment should prompt all men
having an interest in this community to
leave no legitimate means unresorted to,
to obtain by judicial or legislative action
the separation of this county from the
State of West Virginia.
There is another branch of this subject
which should not escape full exposition.
The slow and regular process of Con-
stitutional Amendment did not suffice.
1t was deemed expedient, in order the
more certainly to secure its adoption, and
to place or retain in power only those
who approved it, to pass a law which
DISTINGUISHES those against whom the
amendment is aimed-thus placing it's
rejection out of their reach, and, indeea,
dispensing with the necessity of the
amendment, if that law be itself consti-
tutio1aul.
To determine this it is necessary to
refer to a provision of the Constitution
of West Virginia, which has been, most
sedulously and strangely, kept as much
out of view as possible-as follows:
"The citizens of the State are the citi-
zens of the UnitedStates, residing there
in. "-Art. 1, Sec. 6.
Are those not still citizens of the
United States who aided the rebellion:
Who can question it? If liable to pun
ishment, they, yet, lost not the character
Of citizens of the United States and, to
say nothing of the Presidents Amnesty
Proclamation, wehavet the official opinion
of the Attorney General of the United
States, as follows:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,
August -, 1865.
Hon. HUGH MCCULLOUGH, Secretary OF
Treasury:
SIR: / have the honor to say, in reply
to your letter of the 18th inst, that, in
my opinion, if the two persons to whom
you refer as having resigned commits
sions in the naval service of the United
States, and accepted employment in the
rebel naval service, were born in the
competent according to the act of June
|
United States.
If they were citizens before they en-
gagged in rebellion, they did not lose
their citizenship by becoming traitors.
They became liable to suffer the pains
and penalties which the law inhicts
upon convicted traitors, but l am not
aware that forfeiture Of citizenship is
one of those pains and penalties.
Their conduct may have impressed
upon them the qualified character of en-
emies, but did not destroy their inherent
character as citizens which, by birth or
otherwise, they acquired. Very respect
| fully, your obedient servant,
JAMES SPEED,
Attorney General.
Being such, the Constitution of West
Virginia makes them, ipso tfecto, citi-
zens of that State.
1t is merely idle, therefore, to attach
any Importance to the law OF disfran-
chisement, passed at the last session, or
the Act Of February 3, 1868, OF the re-
stored Government-a sascertaining who
tnrn <,sf of, ~, r>f f.if