The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-05-30

time, ALL KINDS or JOB WORK, and We
most respectfully ask tho patronage of our
friends.
TIE ATToRNEY-GENERAL OPINION.
Passing from the question Of registration,
and the qualifications and disqunlfieations
therefor, the Attorney General proceeds 10
treat Of the subject Of general disfrnnchiso-
mcnt. After the most careful examination, VIC
cannG: lnd any reference in the opinion to q
difference which clearly exists in the character
ard extcn. of this disfranchisement. That
difference is: by the original Act each State is
required TO adopt the Constitutional Amend
mcn,. Ty TINT Amendment these citizens,
among others. nro disqualified from holding
Office, who ''having previously US members Of q
State Legislature taken an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have en-
gagcd in insurrcction. &c." -..
4 member Of tho State Legislature, there
fore, who had become a member since tho cs-
tabiishrncnt Of The Confcdcrucy, would not be
disqualified because, mover mind how far he
had participated in tho rebellion, he had not
previously taken the oath to support the Con-
stitutiou of the United States. Before the
iact attracted the attention of Congress, and
they attempted TO remedy il, but owing TO the
haste with which the act was passed, they only
half cfructcd their purpose. The Supplemental
Act in providing for registration, specified a
rusistry oath which required the applicant TO
swear among other things, 'ahutihc has never
bucn member Of any State Legislature. nor
held any executive or iu,lfcial Office in any
s;tnte, and afterwards engaged in insurrcctien
u;,anst tho United. .States," The Supplemental
.tct, therefore, included The class which had
escaped the Constitutional Amendment, but the
Supplemental act only excluded tlIafoolaEs
from registry, nnd consequently from roing,
but il docs not dsqualify them from holding
Office, for the provision of the original not. is
explicit, "that no person excluded from, thc
pririiege Of holding office by said propoIrd amend
,nrnf 10 the Constitution of the United States
shall be eligible 10 election us u member Of the
Convention" - q"
It therefore lnppcns that q. very consids era
bic class Of citizens, viz: Those who wcrc
elected to tho Legislature only after the estab-
llslilnent of the Confederacy, are excluded by
the Supplemental Act from registry and from
voting, but are moi. excluded from election as
members of t4eS Convention. This isna very
ggsqEtaRt afsrcRes as confusion Of idsns in
sume most active and intelligent citizens who,
as the law now stands, nre not disqualified
+ Before referring 70 the general theory of the
-, A. Il l. AZ
is special point to which We would ask atten-
tion AS the Attorney Generals decision seems
most extraordinary on his own principles. :,
ID discussing the disquplifying. character of
members of the Legislature, othe Attorney
General says, with groat force and unusual
clenrnpss,, .'Thc question might however arise
whether Convention held in State for franz
ing or amendment Of its constitution would
answer to the description of Il State Eegisla:
ture within the meaning OF The Act! Such q
Convention, although it is clothed with LtegisA
latiye powers, cannot properly be denonlinated
State Legislature, and, in the acts now under
consideration, Convention and q Legislature
are expressly distinguished from each other
for they require tho Constitution to be frhined
tire Of the samc' State to adopt the Constilu-;
iional Amendment. When, then, in. tho sqne
acts, they again use the phrase Legislature Of
the State, they must bo understood 10 use il in
the same sense and as distinguished from "a
Constitutional Convention" Nothing gan he
clenrcr thnn this except its direct, inevitable
consequence thnL the disqualification which
uIio IN 4. t.,So IA
not attach to members Of i, Contention simply
BECAUSE the latter nre not included in tho .act,
aud because, as the Attorney Genornl saysythe
act uses the word Legislature rs distinguished
from Convention. Surely there is no flawy in
this reasoning, but, after completing his logic,
the Attorney General seems to hayo discovered
Tint this imputablc Interpretation would savei
from disqualification tile members of the State
Conventions who ordained the secession of the
States, and forgetting wbnt he himself says in
another portion Of his opinion, s.My duty is
simply one of construction" he proceeds TO re-
verse his whole work of a"construction" by
adding: ="
"I5ut MS to those lsgisiahre bodies Which pass
ed what are called ordinances of. secession, by
"nn'cfef huHc lhSJ thuy hhye pcen cnltetf, 4
nm Of opinion that their members nre properly
comprelended within this disqualifying clause,
for can imagine no official Legislative position
in which, the duty Of allegiance was moro die
tiuctiy violated" Ian -. tts.,s .'i4si.,
In the previous paragraph, "sueh o convvon-
ton, although clothed with Legislative powers,
cannot bo properly denominatel State lie gis.
lnturc," aud YET in len lines otter II has become
80 legislative body" - =
At irst his only duty Is "to construe;" now, now;
his duty is "to imagine"
What matters it to the Attorney. General
whether "tho duty of allegiance" was Violated,
the question for him was: Is that violation Of
duty punished by this special act? Il. j
If '.oficial legislative" violation Of the duty
of allegiance is in itself disqualification sulli-
oient to override such a construction as he gives
Of the Act, why should it not combine other
sections Of the act, and thus set aside some Of
its dearest provisions
We could understand such nm opinion, held
and enforced by military commander claim
ing to carry out the spirit and not the letter of
the Acl, for We admit very freely that this ex-
emDtion of rnonhero NJ q gha