The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-28

unimportant. OF chief interest is the extent
to which taking part IN the Rebellion is a dis
qualification from voting Mr.. Stansbery elabo-
Tately examines the meaning of the act which
excludes officers who have taken part in the
Rebellion and decides that officers of the
militia are not included; that the act does not
apply to municipal officers, and that with all
those who are not strictly State, judicial, or
Executive officers, the uncertain definition,
which he contends exists in the law, must be
construed in favor of the voter. vast b0ty
of officers, he asserts, are not positively ex-
cluded by the law. The disqualification bas9 I'd
on the breaking of the oath of office is
the next subject of the opinion, which is
given TO this effect-that the disqualification
is intended to comprehend military as well
as civil officers, and to be more general in
application to United States officers than to
those Of a State. OF more practical import
ance is the next queston-what acts consu-
tute the guilt of engaging in rebellion, or of
giving comfort or aid to the enemies of the
United States AS these acts are defined, the
number Of voters is to be restricted or en-
larged. Mr.. Stansbery advances the extra
ordinary opinion that the phrase "enemies of
the United States" should be strictly confined
to what he asserts to be its legal meaning,
viz, foreign nations and that only such as
those who gave aid and comfort to Great Bri-
tain in 1872 and to Mexico in 1947, should be
disfranchised under the clause Yet he is
mot quite prepared to say that Congress
may not have used it as applicable to the
Rebellion" 1t is well that he was not quite
prepared to make such decision, for if
there is anything clear and unmistakable
in the law, it is that Congress meant
absolutely the enemies of the United
States who fought at Gettysburg and Atlanta,
and not by any means those who were de-
feated forty years ago on the Lakes, or at
MA1N n,zI -. l.
cannot be escaped, and the Attorney General,
therefore, gives it weight. 1t will be seen
that he would not include in the disfranchised
classes those who were compelled to aid in
Rebellion, conscripts, slaves, and officers who,
in obedience to de fdcto governments, were
concerned with the administration of law.
Purely civil and necessary officers he cannot
bring himself to.believe were meant by Con-
gress, and upon this point the argument is very
full. We cannot say that the Attorney General
has stated his opinion very emphatically, or
tersely, though for this he may plead the
alleged uncertainty and vagueness of the
acts themselves. But the drift of his
argument may be summed up to be, in his
own words:-"The intent (of the acts) as ex-
pressed, is to enable the people of each of
these States to frame a Constitution for the
State by the exercise of the right of suffrage.
There are cl&uses of the act giving the right
by general terms of description to the people
generally, and especially to those who have
never enjoyed the right before. There are
other clauses of the act which, by general
terms, take away this right of suffrage from
those who have always enjoyed it. The rule
of construction as to the clauses which give
the right must be liberal, and to them the
general terms are not to be restricted, but to
those clauses which derogate from the exist
ing right the rule of construction must be
strict that none should be excluded who are
not clearly within the letter and intent"
With this general construction we are salts
fed, but not with the special opinions based
upon it.