The New York herald., 1867-05-28

Recsnssrsctiss-T Aetsrsey Generars Opt.
nien ~ % whs arc EaaItlsa 10 vsse IN the
seathern States.
Attorney General Stanbery's opinion upon
certain clauses Of the reconstruction acts is .
document that will be satisfactory to the
country, though it will surprise and sstonish
those who suppose Congress had disfranchised
. considerable portion Of the Southern people.
1t gives the oficial Interpretation, the authori-
tative construction Of the vague phrases of the
acts as to suffrage, Acknowledgement and partici-
patton in the rebellion and in doing this deter
mines points that ct present are Of high impor-
tance. II settles practically who are to vote
in the elections provided for. As this fact will
inevitably determine the character Of recon-
stfucton, the kind of constitutions that States
will frame, as it may even yet decide that some
States will remain in their present subsection
to military law rather than frame governments
on the basis of negro equality, IS it will deter
mine the dominance Of parties, it is obvious of
what importance to the country may be the
determination of the point-Who are now,
under the reconstruction laws, voters in the
Southern States?
Under this Interpretation simple 'participa-
ton in the rebellion" as the phrase is popu-
larly understood, disfranchises no one. "Other
elements must concur to authorize a denial
OF registration. II there is no concurrence Of
such "other eements,r ii is the clear duty Of
once registered, its owner is q voter. There is
no power OF revision or alteration beyond the
Board of Registry. Thus, in voting, an actual
amnesty exists for all rebels-who were not at
the same time something more than rebels.
Perhaps the extension Of this amnesty was not
the intention OF Congress. The original Mill
tary bill contemplates disIranchscmentf for s'par-
tclpation in the rebellion" Mr.. johnson un-
derstood The phrase in relation to participation
in the rebellion as DISTINGUISHING, and ia his
veto OF the second bill based his main objec-
ton upon the declaration that under its provi-
sions "thc great body of the people might be
excluded from the polls" Mr.. Stanbery was
at the time accredited with the authorship Of that
veto. Now the phrase upon which the SUPPOSE
ton Of dislranchisement was based is shown to
be mere verbiage and to have no force. BY its
phraseology II excepts from The class Of voters
asuch as may be distranchised for participation
| in the rebellion or for felony at common law, /,
How, when, where and by whom 'may~ they
be disiranchised for these acts No means
have been provided or persons named. The
acts themselves, "the mere facts,r sayu the At
torney General, do not operate thu. disfran-
chisement. IL "must be ascertaipssd nv fhr
Judgment Of q court or by q legisl ative actr
We can have no such Judgment, if we reason
| from the case Of Jefferson Davis, and there ID
no such Legislative sct- In existence. IL am
not aware" Mr.. Stanbery says, "of any Law Of
the United States which works disfranchise.
ment as to the right Of suffrage. by force Of the
act itself; nor does such con sequence follow
| from the conviction for treason or con
| spiracy to commit treason, OF for any othel
act Of participation Sin reb ellion.'- Thus the
| disfranchiscment clause OF the Military bill /,
insufficient and fails.
| All disft~nchisement, therefore, rests upor
the Supplementary act and upon the oath IN
that act which every p erson presenting himsel
for registration is required to take. In thi
| oath we find the "otner elements" whose con
currence with resistance to the governmcn
involves Acknowledgement These elements ar
"the holding Of certain Offices or the taking ai
oficial OATH" The candidate for resistratio
mast not o.,ly swear that he has not partic
pated In .ne rebellion and given aid to tb
! epsuies. Of The country, but also that be w