The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-04-23
WHO CAN VOTE,

The following communication is from an intel
ligent lawyer in this State, gentleman who oc-
cupies prominent position:
Mr.. EDITOR As it is the duty and interest
of every one to do what he toward forming a
State Government which is to give protection to
life, liberty and property for all time to come, it
is important to know with certainty what persons
are excluded from taking part in the work
Doubtless those intrusted with carrying into
effect the Reconstruction Acts of Congress will
at the proper time give the necessary information
upon this point. But in the meantime AS you
have alluded to the subject in your paper. trust
| more detailed view will not be improper or I'M
| interesting to your readers.
One of the reasons given by the President for
refusing to sign the Supplemental Bill was that
it required an oath of doubtless meaning. The
doubt is whether the prescribed oath enlarges the
classes disfranchised by the Act of March Cd.
BY constituting the two Acts together, ut res magis
| ualeat guam pereat it is obvious enough that all
may take the oath who are not disfranchsed by
the first Act. The words of the Act are 'elected
by the male citizens of said State twenty-one
years old and upward of whatever race. color or
previous condition who have been resident in
said State for year previous to the day of
such election. except such may be DISTINGUISHED
for participation in the rebellion, for felony
common law 1t then excludes from the right
of voting ali who disqualified for holding
! office by the proposed Constitutional Amendment.
words of the Act together with the disabling
| language of the proposed Amendment, and in
| serts in addition the following clause, ''that
| have never been member of any State Legisla-
ture, nor held any Executive or judicial Office in
any State ard afterwards" &c. 1t is obvious
that the law makers the word 'State' in this
clause i'll its proper legal sense to signify
| Der of the Union. They uniformly the word
| in this sense. When they refer to the organiza-
| tons in the South during the the term
| played is ''pretended State Government" In
| taking the oath we are bound by the meaning
which Congress intended the words to have and
no other. The clause intended to include
i'll the disfranchised class those who were mem
bsrs ef State Legislatures, Judicial Execu-
tive officers Immediately before the war. and
failed to take an oath to support the Constitution
of the United States. The fact that the words of
the Act followed with the addition of this
clause makes it clear enough that are ex-
claded except those indicated in the proposed
amendment.
The inquiry remains, who are judicial and
Executive officers. The Constitution of the
United States requires that members of the Leg
| islatures and Judicial and Executive officers Of
the States shall take oath to support the Con-
stitution of the United States. The General AS
sembly of the State in 1871, enacted that all
| members of the Legislature and all persons who
shall be appointed chosen to hold any Office of
profit or trust within the State shall take oath
! to support the Constitution of the United States.
The trainers of this act either did moro than the
Constitution required them to do, they con-
sidered the term judicial or Executive office CO.
| extensive with the term office of profit trust
| The inference that the latter the view enter
| tanned by them may be drawn from the theory
| that our civil government consists of three
CO ordinate branches, the Legislative, judicial
and Executive. As the members of the Legisla-
ture make up the Legislative all other officers of
| the State must be cassed in the other branches :;
unless we suppose that there are State officers
not within either of the three branches named.
which would be equivalent to saying that the
Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches do
not make up the entire civil government The
conclusion seems to be unavoidable that all are
| disfranchised who before the war held any civil
office which required them to take oath to sup
| port the Constitution of the United States, and
afterwards engaged in the rebellion.
This severe extension of hard rule 81 ould not
be made to include any who do not necessarily
| fall within it. Hence. although Attorneys at
Law have always been regarded as officers of the
| Court. and have always in this State taken the
oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, they cannot be considered as within the
| meaning of the term Executive Judicial officer
| as employed in the proposed amendment. This
is evident from the fact that i'm of the States
| they are not required to take the OATH which all
Executive aud Judicial officers are required to
| take.
METHODIST CHURcH.-The questions of lay
| L Il, of of H. ms