Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1867-07-04
The Question of Perjury.

oooiioio0l, WHo participated III the re-
belilon since the adoption of the famous
Alexandria Constitution, are disfranchis-
ed by its provisions, we think it can
be proven that they are mistaken. If, as
they tell every man who offers to register,
1T be true that those who take the oath
that they have not been disfranchised for
participation in the rebellion, notwith-
standing they were in the service since
the adoption of that instrument, are guilty
of the crime of perjury, it is very seri-
Gus matter. Perjury is defined to be "the
act or crime of wilfully making false OATH
when lawfully administered. Now, if
Congress, in the reconstruction acts, bad
intended that the great body of the white
men of Virginia should be disfranchised
by the provision of the Alexandra Con-
stitution referred to, the fact would no
doubt have been recited in those acts =
But instead of excluding this class from
the benefits of those acts, they empbatical-
ly declare that ono legal State govern
ments or adequate protection for life Or
property now exists in the rebel States, %
including Virginia. 1t matters not achen
these Estate governments ceased to have
a legal existence, whether it was at
the time of the passage of the ordinances
OF secession, or under the operation of the
5. 5. S. bill,-the effect, practically, SO
tar as the question under consideration is
concerned, is the same; in either case,
emo legal State governments" "nou exist"
Then, if the reconstruction acts do not ex-
clude those DISTINGUISHED by that conven-
ton; if the authors of that act do not be-
heve that any others than those specially
named are DISTINGUISHED and if there is
really serious doubt upon the subject in
the minds of the registrars, who have no
powers conferred upon them to adjudicate
the question, what right have they to bold
the mere ipse di1it Of Hunnicutt, Under
wood, and other eminent jurists'' Ia terro-
ga,na over the heads of those who offer to
register? Why do they say, in substance,
''Be careful how you take this oath that
you thave not been disfranchised for par
ticipation in any rebellion or civil war
against the United States" or you may
commit perjury and subject yourself to
prosecution hereafter 2" Do these regis
trars really believe that the parties refer
red to are guilty of "aoiltialy making a
false OATH" because they had been dis
franchised by the Alexandria Convention,
notwithstanding neither the acts of Con-
gress nor the orders of Gen. Scho6eld con-
tain word upon the subject? We would
fam give these gentlemen credit for trying
to act honestly and fairly; and we would
like to accord to them sufficient inteIi-
gence to comprehend the meaning of the
term s'perjury," as defined and adopted
by the lawmakers and accepted by the
civil courts in all the civilized countries in
the world. They ought to know that these
parties cannot be legally charged with the
high crime of having perjurcd themselves,
unless they do a0iItuzly swear that that is
true which they hnoo to be Jazse Where
there is an honest conviction on the part
of the person offering to register that he
has the right to register under the acts Of
Congress and the orders of the command
ant of this military district, the charge of
perjury cannot be sustained. They can
not SO back of the law. They are under
no obligation to be governed blythe pri-
yate opinions of the registrars, OR even
the enlightened conclusions of such temi-
nent jurists" as Hunnicutt and Under
wood. Nay, more: if Congress shall de-
clare hereafter that those who engaged in
rebellion since the adoption of the Alex
andria Constitution are DISTINGUISHED by
that instrument, those who register under
the laws now in force will not have COM
mitted the crime of perjury, either in le-
gal or moral sense.
It's fair to presume that Congress inten-
ded, in the absence of any evidence or just
inference to the contrary, to place all the
''rebel States on an equal footing; in
short, that the operation of the law should
be uniforma in all the territory embraced
in the late Southern Confedercy; and that
if it had been the intention of that BODY
to deprive portion Of the citizens Of Vir-
ginia of the privileges granted to the same
class in South Carolina, Georgia, and the
rest, that intention would have been clear
ly set forth in the reconstruction acts
Good faith, no less than common honesty,
required that they should have done this.
That they have not done SO, we infer, is
evidence that they did not intend to dis
criminate against the class referred to in