The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-06-21
The Alexandria Observation-Disclosures
Point.

The Alexandria Cons titution-Another
Point.
In another article we have shown that
the persons dsfranchised by the recon-
struction acts are only those described in
the constitutional amendment. We pro-
pose now to show that while those persons
cannot conscientiously take the voters
oath, all others can, thus demonstrating
not only that no person was intended by
Congress to be disfranchised by the Alex
andria Constitution, but that no person
can be disfranchised by virtue of that
abomination.
The oath requires each person to swear
that he is citizen, twenty-one years old,
and that he has never held any Of the
offices mentioned in the amendment, and
afterwards engaged in rebellion. Now, it
is plain that no man who held any one Of
these offices before the war and afterwards
engaged in rebellion can conscientiously
take the oath. But not so as to the oath
that the voter has never been disfranchised
for felony or for participation in rebellion.
A man may have committed felonious
act, vet if he has never been convicted Of
it in a court of competent jurisdiction he
is not disfranchised. So Of those who
have participated in rebellion. Even if
the Alexandria Constitution were now in
force, no one could be excluded from the
polls by virtue of it unless he had been
convicted in court Of having engaged in
rebellion, &c. 1t is not enough that man
has done the forbidden act; he must have
been convicted Of it. Upon this very
point we have the opinion Of the Attor
ney General. lie says:
What, then, makes Il acknowledgements
under these provisions? Whether we consider
this disability as arising ont OIL participation
in a rebellion or the commission OF felony,
the mere fact of such participation or the
commiss ion of n felonious offence does not oil
itself work acknowledgements. II "nSt DC as
c.rtorpsd IN the iwdymem IF U CART or ny a tey's-
idtire act pissed IN competent dwh0rHy.
The lawyers in Congress knew this as
we'll as Mr.. STANBERY. 1t is in accordance
with the settled principles of the law. The
point was decided by the Supreme Court
of PENNSYLVANIA last year. In that State
bounty Jumpers and persons who ran away
from home to escape from the army are
DISTINGUISHED. Some such persons had
been excluded from the polls. They APP
pealed to the courts, and the courts de-
cided that all such were legal voters un-
less they had been convicted OF the
offence in court; because the law pre-
snmes every man to be innocent until he
has been proved to be guilty in open
court. knowing this fact, Congress was
not satisfied with the operation of the con-
stitutional amendment, under which all
the persons described therein would have
had to be convicted in court Of having en-
gagged in rebellion, but required all per-
sons offering to register to take an oath
that they had not held these offices and
afterwards engaged in rebellion, whether
thew had ever been convicted or not. The
oath thus, says Mr.. STANBERY, operates
Acknowledgement as to officers which the
amendment could not.
But as to the other point-namely, dis
franchisement for felony OF for participa-
ton in rebellion, the oath leaves the case
exactly as it was before; and every man
who has not been convicted in court OF
felony or of participation in rebellion can
safely and conscientiously take the voters
oath for, inasmuch as according to the
highest legal authority in the country a
man cannot be disfranchised until he has
been convicted in court of the criminal
act, and as no one in Virginia has thus
been convicted, it follows that we may all
with clear consciences swear that we
share neuer been diSfranchised for partici-
patton in rebellion"
P. S.-Since this article was prepared,
we learn that special instructions will be
sent from Washington on this subject.
See first page of Daily Dispatch.