New-York tribune., 1867-05-29
DIS SFRANCHISEAENTS UNDER THE RECON
STPUCTION ACT

DIS FRANCHTSEMENTS UNDER TIE RECON-
STRUCTION ACT
The Interpretation given to the Rcconstruc-
ton act by AttOrncy-Gcneral Stanbery is
practically as important and authoritative as II
it were pronounced by the Supreme Court,
since no appeal can possibly be taken from
the action of tho military commanders, which
will be gnided by the opinion just published.
II therefore merits n very careful considera-
tnn. for upon this basis the entire work OF
reorganization will proceed. The opinion OF
Mr.. Stanbcry OH all matters other than those
relating TO disfranchsemcnt is not likely TO be
the subject of dispute, and need not be re-
viewed at length He holds that the decisions
of the Boards of Registration arc final; that
every applicant for registration must be twenty
one years old icheR registered, but need not
have been one year in the State UH The eiec-
fOn, and that none but citizens OF the United
States can vote.
The DISTINGUISHING clauses of the act, added
to the original Sherman amendment by
Mr.. Shcllabarger, were doubtless intended to
have broader operation than the rules oi
LEGAL Interpretation will allow. These clauses
were drawn up in great haste, and adopted as
a compromise without the benefit OF debate,
which might have drawn attention TO their
loose expression Why the error should not
have been corrected in the Supplemental Act,
which was framed with more deliberation, 1t IL
not easy to explain, unless by supposing that
Congress was so anxious to show good fath III
adhering to the act of the previous session as
finality that it preferred TO leave n defect un-
cured, rather than expose itself to the charge
of vacillaiion However this may be, il is GER
tain that both acts profess 10 exclude
from the right of suffrage all "who may
| " have been disfranchised for participation
in the Rebellion" and yet that no one
| is go disfranchised in any of the States
affected by this act tothcrwise than by other
clauses Of the act itself. This is very clearly
! stated by Mr.. Stanbcry: and the exception
which he suggests may exist in Virginia was,
we are very confident, abrogated in 1865. This
clause is, therefore, substantially a nulity.
The remaining text of the two statutes them
selves is the only authority for excluding from
the polls any one who formerly had right to
vote. The oath prescribed by the Supplement-
ary Act declares in effect that the applicant for
registration has never engaged in rebellion
against the United States, nor given aid OF
comfort to the enemies thereof after having
been member of State Legislature,
or an executive or judicial officer of a State,
or after having taken an oath as such or as
member of Congress- OF as m officer OF the
United States, TO support the Constitution OF
the United States. The Attorney General holds
that this oath does not exclude members of a
State Convention as such, that body being en-
tirely distinguislable from Legislature. In
this he is perfectly right, and we only regret
that he could not have so instructed Mr. john
son in 1865, and thus have saved the latter
from the error of assuming as he did, that
electors of Convention must necessarily have
the same qualifications as electors Of Legis-
lature.
The State officers who, in Mr. Stanbery's
Judgment, are .disfranchsed, are .only those
who in a proper sense, are officers of the State,
and not mere officers of municipality. He
does not cite any authority for this PROPOSE
ton, but there is a very respectable decision
directly in point, in the Sd of HarringtOn's
(Dcaware) Reports, in which it was held that
a provision in the Constitution forbidding
clergymcn from holding Office did not extend
to municipal Offices. Mr. Stanbery may find
it desirable to refer to this case (he State agt.
Wilmington in preparing his opinion
upon the questions he has reserved.
Militia officers, and persons who have held
Offices of purely non-poltieal character, such
as notares State directors ofipublic institutions,
&C., are held not to be disfranchsed by the
act. But officers of the United States, of every
species and grade, civil or military, executive,
legislative or judicial are held to be within the
statute, though whether mere commissioners
TO take Acknowledgements, or similar officials,
are within this class, Mr.. Stanbery does not
say. They are SO few, however, that the ques-
tion is unimportant.
Participation in the Rebellion, it is held,
must have been voluntary, In order to disfran-
chise, and must have consisted of something
more than mere cooperation in preserving the
usual forms of local government. Judges,
sherifis, county clerks, mayors, &C., &C., are
not to be considered as engaging in rebellion,
or even as giving aid and comfort to Rebels,
by performing the ordinary duties OF such
Offices during the Rebellion. The result of the
Attorney Generals Interpretation Of the law is
to reduce the scope of the disfranchising
clauses to very narrow limits. Unless those
who hold the policy of exclusion and disfran-
chisement to be necessary can persuade Con-
gress to amend the law in July, which is very
improbable, they will have to accept pretty
nearly the programme of impartial suffrage
which THE TRIBUNE has constantly advocated.
Tho paonIa nf Tim Gnuih both whita and