The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-05-30
THE arronsEY.GENERAL's OPINION

friends
THE ATTorsEY-GENERAL OPINION.
Passing from the question OF reglstratlon'
and the qualifications and disquallhcations
therefor, tho Attorney General proceeds to
treat of the subject of general disfranchise-
ment. After the most careful examination, we
cannot find any reference in the opinion to
difference which clearly exists in the character
and exten: of this disfranchisement. That
difference is by the original Act each State is
required to adopt the Constitutional Amend
ment. By that Amendment those citizens,
among others, are disqualified from holding
Office, who sshaving previously as members OF a
State Legislature taken an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have en-
gagged in insurrection, &c.
A member of the State Legislature, there
fore, who had become a member since the es-
tablishment Of the Confederacy, would not DC
disqualified because, never mind how far ne
had participated in the rebellion, he had not
previously taken the oath to support the Con-
s.itution of the United States. Before the
Supplemental Bill was passed, however, this
fact attracted the attention of Congress- ana
they attempted to remedy it, but owing to the
haste with which the act was passed, they only
half effected their purpose. The Supplemental
Act in providing for registration, spccihed o
registry oath which, required the applicant 10
swear amoag other things, ''that he has never
been member Jf any State Legislature, nor
held any executive or Judicial Office in, any
State, and afterwards engaged in lnsurrec'ion
arainst the United States" TheSupplemental
Act. therefore, included the class which had
e.oanel. the Constitutional Amendment, but the
Supplemental Act only excluded that class
from registry, and consequently from voting'
but it does not disqualify them from holding
Office, for the provision of the original act is
explicit, ethat no person excluded from tho
privilege of holding office by said proposed amend
r,ent to the Constitution of the United States
shall be eligible to election as a member OF the
Convention.
!, It therefore happens that very oonsid era
BILE cluss> of citizens, Wis: Thoseewho were
elected to the Legislature only after the estab-
lishment Of the Confederacy, arc excluded by;
the, Supplemental Act from registry and from
voting, but are not excluded from election as,
members of the Convention. This is very
important difference, as a confusion of ideas in
reference TO it would exclude from. election
some most active and intelligent citizens who,
as the law now stands, are, not disqualified. :
Before referring to the general theory ofthe
onin;on in reference to disfranchisement, there
is o special point to which we would ask atten-
tion as the Attorney Generals decision seems
t most St extraordinary-on his own principles
:. In discussing the .disaualifying character OF
members of the Legislature, the Attorney
General says, with great force and unusual az rs1l
clearncss, ''The question might however arise
whether Convention held in State for franz
iug or amendments of its constitution would dsl1.
answer to the description Of a State Leglsla-
ture within the meaning of the Act! Such g
Convention, although tits clothedtwith 'begis-
latiye powers cannot properly be denominated
State Legislature, and, in the acts now under
consideration, a Convention and Legislature
are expressly distinguished from each other
for thew. REQUIRE the Constitution to be framed
by Convention, and they require the tegisla-
ture of the same State to adopt the 5Constltu-
tional Amendment. When, then, ,in,otho .Hame
ucts,cthey again use the phrase Legislature OF
the State, they must be understood 10 use it in
the same sense and as distinguished from
Constitutional Convention" Nothing car; be
clearer than th is except its direct, inevitable
consequence that the disqualification w6ich
attaches to members of the Legislature does oees
not attach to members of a Convention, simply.
because the latter are not included in the act,
and because as the Attorney General says, the
act uses the word Legislature qs distinguished.
from Convention. Surely there is. no flaw in
this reasoning, but, after completing his logic,
the Attorney General seems io'haye discovered
that this lmputable Interpretation would save
from disqualification the members of the State
Conventions who ordained the secession of the
States, and forgetting whit he himself says in
another portion Of his opinion, "My duty is
simply one of construction" he proceeds re-
verse his1whole work of "construction", by
adding:
"Dut as to those legislative bodies which pass
ed what are called ordinances of secession, by
whatever namc they may have been called, i
am of opinion that their members are properly
comprehended within this disqualifying clause,
for can imagine no official legislative position
in which the duty of allegiance was more dis
tinctly violated"
In the previous paragraph, ''such conven-
tion, although clothed with legislative powers
cannot be properly denominated State Legis-
lature, aud yet in ten lines after it has become
go legislative body
At first, his or'y duty is ''to construe;" now,
his duty is "to imagine"
What matters it to tho Attorney General
whether "the duty of allegiance" was violated,
the question for him was: Is that violation of
duty punished by this special act?
If "oficial Legislative" violation Of the duty
of allegiance is in itself disqualification sufti-
cient to override such construction as he gives
of the Act, why should it not combine other
sections of the Act, and thus set aside some Of
its clearest provisions?
We could understand such IN opinion, held
and enforced by military commander claim
ing to carry out the spirit and not the letter OF
the Act, for we admit very freely that this e1-
emption of members of the Convention was one
of the omissions consequent upon the hurry of
legislation. We have no idea that Congress in
tended it. But the Attorney-General repre-
IT, -. ho Lnowo nntb;nu of accidents