The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-05-27

mast be understood to use ii in the same
sense and as distinguished from consti.
tutional convention. But as to those lepis.
lative bodies which passed what are called
ordinances of secession, by whatever name
they may have been called, / am of the
opinion that their members are properly
comprehended within this disqualifyinp
clause, for can imagine no official lepis
lative position in which the duty of allegi
ancc was more distinctly violated.
The next, the more difficult, inquiry
is, Who is to be considered an Off
Ger of the United States, or an executive
or judicial officer of any State, within the
meaning of these clauses Various classe.
OF officers are here intended. State officers
and Federal officers, and executive or ju.
dicial officers. No legislative officer il
mentioned except member of State
legislature or member of Congress. De.
scriptons used as to other officers are as to
State officers, that they must be judicial OF
executive, and as TO Federal officer the
terms Judicial" or executive " are not
express. He is described simply as an off.
Ger of the United States. 1t has been
shown that Federal officers and State Off.
GERS are classified separately in the clauses
of the act under consideration. deem il
profitable and conducive to clear order
to follow this classification. / shall &C
cordingly first consider what State officers
are included in the terms executive or ju-
dicial. This phrase is twice used in these
clauses with the superadded description
ain any State" II, any State" in the
first clause, and Of any State in the second
clause. think the controlling term of de-
Scription, if there is any repugnancy in the
terms, must be taken to be the last, for
that is used in the first clause and others
besides. Ii is the same term of descrip-
tion used in the act Of Congress of 1889,
declaring what State officers are required
to take the oath to support the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and in the third
section of the constitutional amendment.
Both use the same terms Of description
executive and judicial officers of the
State" The terms are so general.and in
definite that they fail to express with suf-
ticient certainty designation Of the per-
sons intended to be reached. 1t is to be
regretted, in matter Of so much import
ance, that the rule of designation adopted
as to members of Congress and of a State
legislature had not been followed up. If
I tIhl hNlC dIllIdDlCy tHdl SouIC Hloi .
definite general rules had not been de-
clared. The uncertainty becomes mani
fest in the application of the law,
and this uncertainty neceSsitates con-
struction. The necessity for construc-
| tion, which arises from the generality of
! the law, cannot be better stated than in
the language of Plowden Though the
words be general, they are to be reduced
to q particularly by exposition made &C
coriing to the intent of the act. Those
statutes which comprehend all things in
the letter, the sages of the law have cx-
pounded to extend to but some things.
( Those which generally prohibited all peo-
pie from doing such an act, they have in
torpretcd to permit some persons to do ,
and those which include every person in
I the letter, they have adiudged to reach
some persons only-all founded upon the
intent, which is collected by considering
the cause and necessity of the act, and
comparing one part with another, and
sometimes by foreign circumstances" l
deem it proper here to fix some clear ideas
of the general intent of these acts, and by
/ what right Of construction, strict or libe-
raj, that intent may best be arrived at.
The intent, as expressed, Is to enable the
people of each Of these States to frame 4
constitution for the State by the exercise
! of the right of suffrage. There are clauses
, of the act giving the right, by general
terms Of description, to the people gene
rally, and especially to those who have
never enjoyed the right before. There
are other clauses Of the act which, by
general terms, take away this right of sui-
frage from those who have always enjoyed
it. The rule of construction as to the
clauses which give the right must be libe-
raj, and as to them the general terms are
not to be restricted. But as to those
clauses which derogate from the existing
right, the rule of construction must be
strict, that none should be excluded who
are not clearly within the letter and in
tent.
l begin, then, with the inquiry, Whether
officers of the military Of the State are
embraced within these terms of descrip-
ton F.? And have no doubt they are not.
Certainly Congress, as to the officers of
State, was not content to use the terms at
large and without qualification. If Con-
grcss had intended to qualify, the usual
words 10 manifest that intent would have
been adopted, and the terms would have
been the judicial and executive, the civil
or military, officers of the State" Accord
ingly, We lind that when that was purposed,
as we see it was in the third section of the
constitutional amendment, in article fourth,
Congress expresses that purpose very
clearly. That section provides that no
person shall be a senator or represen-
tativc in Congress, or elector of pre-
Sident or vice president, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the
United States or under any State,
who, as member of any State Legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, took an oath to support the Constl-
tuition OF the United States, and shall have
engaged in instruction or rebellion against
the same, or given aid and comfort to the
enemies thereof. This third section is eX-
pressly referred to more than once in these
acts. 1t is made, in fact, part OF these
acts. It's language is followed word for
word in those disqualifying clauses as far
as was practicable, except in the particu-
lar in which one is made to apply to eligi-
blity, and the other to the right to vote.
| When, therefore, we find that Congress, in
declaring what persons shall be dlsfran-
chiscd from holding any office, expressly
includes military as well as civil officers,
as in the third section of the amendment,
and in providing what persons shall be
/ DISTINGUISHED from voting who held any
! office, omit to mention military officers,
we cannot escape the conclusion that
military officers were not here within
their contemplation. 1t is impossible to
imagine case in which the construction
from laws in pari nlateria has a more CO.
! L. n,tilnnf hero Ia IT