The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-30


have been corrected in the Supplemental act,
which was framed with more deiiberation, it is
not easy to explain, unless by supposing that
Congress was so anxious to show good faith in |
adhering to the act of the previous session as /
finality, that it preferred to leave a defect un-
cured rather than expose itself to the charge |
of vacillation. However this may be, it is GER
tain that both acts profess to exclude from the |
right of suffrage all "who may have been dis |
franchised for participation in the Rebellion" |
and yet that no one is so disfranchised in any
of the States affected by this act otherwise than
by other clauses of the act itself This is very
clearly stated by Mr.. Stanbery and the excep-
tion which he suggests may exist in Virginia
was, we are very confident, abrogated in 1865
This clause is, therefore, substantially nullity.
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
Supplementary act declares in effect that the
applicant for registration has never engaged
in rebellion against the United States, nor
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,
after having been a member of a State Legis-
lature, or an executive or judicial officer of a
State or after having taken an oath as such,
or as a member of Congress, or as an 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 State Convention as such, that body being
entirely distinguishabe from a Legislature.
In this he is perfectly right, and we only re-
gret that he could not have so instructed Mr..
Johnson in 1866, 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 a
Legislature.
The State officers who, in Mr.. Stanbery's
Judgment are disfranchised, are only those
Who in a proper sense, are officers of the
o4n not oof AZ
He does not cite any authority for this propo-
sition, but there is very respectable decision
directly in point in the Sd of Harrington's
(Delaware) Reports, in which it was held that
a provision in the Constitution forbidding
cleTgymen from holding Office did not extend
to municipal offices. Mr.. Stanbery may find
it desirable to refer to this case (the State agt.
Wilmington) in preparing his opinion upon
the questions he has reserved Militia officers,
and persons who have held offices of purely
non-political character, such as notaries, State
directors Of public institutions, etc., are held
not to be disfranehised by the act But the
officers of the United States, of every species
and grade, civil or military, executive, legisla-
tive, 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 dis
franchise, and must have consisted of some
thing more than mere cooperation in preserv-
ing the usual forms of local government.
! judges, sherifs, county clerks, mayors, etc.
! etc.. 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.
The people of the South, both white and
colored, are now relieved from a widespread
misapprehension as to the extent of disfran-
chisement.
We trust that all classes will be encouraged
thereby to pursue the right path, which is
clearly that of loyalty to the Union, combined
with forbearance towards each other. There
has been rather too much reliance placed upon
disfranchisement as a means of securing
majorities for loyal men. 1t seems to us an
undesirable source of power, and while in par
ticular States it has been, and perhaps still is,
a necessity, it ought not to be universally
required. 1t cannot last, and has an unhealthy
effect while it does last. We hope to see large
Union majorities secured in the South, not by
the exclusion of classes from the polls, but by
the free action of the whole people. We ex-
pect to see political privileges abused by large
numbers of malignant men; but they would
not be excluded by any conceivable interpre-
tation of the law; while their evil tempers
would be only aggravated by restrictions which,
they would be conscious, were aimed at them,
but fell short of the mark.
Capture of MaxImIlian- Dominion of the
Old World In the New.
From the World
1t now lacks nine years of a century since