The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-05-29

tho State by the exercise Of the fight OF
suffrage, There are clauses OF the Act
giving the right, by. general terms Of do
scription, TO the people generally: and
the right before. There are other clauses
OF the Act, which, by. general terms. take
away this right OF suffrage from those who
have always enjoyed it. The rule 9, con-
struction az to the clauses which give the
right must be liberal, and as to them the
general terms are not to be restricted. But
as to those clauses which derogatc from
the existing right, tho rule Of construction
nInst be strict, that mono should be cx-
cludcd who arenot clearly within the let.
ter and intent.
!! begin. then, with the inquiry, whether
officers of the military of the State ere
embraced within these terms of dcscrip-
tion: 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. II Con-
gress mad intended 10 qualify, the usual
words to manifest that intent woul have
been adopted, and the terms would havo
been the judicial and executive, the civil
or military, officers of tho State" Accord
mSiv, we lind that when that was pur-
posed as we see it WAS in the third section
OF the constitutional amendment, III arti-
, "ie iour.h, congress expresses that pru-
that no person shall Lc a Senator or Rep
rcsentative in Congress, or clcctor of Pre-
silent or Vice-Pres:dent, or II old any Office,
civil or military, un0,r the United States
or under any State, who, as member oe
any state Legislature, or as an executive
or judicial officer OF any State, took an
oath to support the Constitution OF the
United States, and shall have engaged in
lnsutrection or rebellion against the same
or given aid and comfort to the enemies
thereon. This third section il expressly
referred to moro than once in these Acts.
It is made in fact, part Of these Acts
Its language is followed word for word in
those disquallfying clauses as far as was
practicable, except i'll the particular in
which one is made to apply to eligibility,
and the other to the right TO vote When,
therefore, we find that Congress, in de-
ciaring what persons shall be disfranchised
from holding any Office, expressly Includes
military as well as civil officers, as in the
thlrd section OF the amendment, and in
providing what persons shall be d;sfran-
chised from voting who held any office,
omit to mention military officers, we cam
not escape the conclusion that military
officers were not here within their contem-
Plation. 1t is impossible to imagine q case
III which the construction from laws in
nort Mdterto has moro cogent applica-
ton. for It is evident here that the law
maker, in framing disqualification FOR
voters, took special cognizancc of the third
section OF the amendment, and weighed it
word by word, following it literally for the
most part, and rejecting deliberately the
very word intended to embrace military
officer. Ii must be borne in mind that We
are here considering the class o: military
officers who were such prior 70 the rebel
lion, when the Office was lawful. and who
were officers of tho militia; not that class
who became military officers during the
rebellion. AZ to this last class, they all
come under that other clause OF disQuali-
hcatinn which applies TO participation in
rebellion.
Having Inc inGuiiy thus circumscribed
tn civil officers, the question rccur-, what
civil officers are to be brought within the
tcrnis.''cxccutivc or judicia! officers of n
State: They clearly include, 90 far as
executive officers arc concerned. nll such
officers rs are generally known BY the pro-
of State. IL one sense. and i'll popular
sense, description OF tho executive
officers OF C State is applicable TO q we'll
known class-thc Governor, Lieutenant
Governor, Auditor, Treas surcr, Secretary
and State ,tficials proper, who exercise
:.lcnt.
am not prepared to say that only these
proper state officials conc within this
term OF description. nor am prepared, a.
to the judicial officers Of tho State. to
limit the description 10 judges of courts
State. | must content myself in saying OF
these ci!icers, executive or judicial. tua.
they arc clearly within the mcanin4 ul tho
law. Now, changing the inquiry from an
Affirmative to I negative procC>i i-auch
officers as usually pass undcr the tic~ Grip
ton municipal do not coLiG within The par
view OF the Ac;-such as officers 0. eliza
towns, villages or subordinate municipal
divisions, whether their functions axe exc
ciii.ve and judicial. o., as = sometimes
the case, where the same officer acts in
both capacities. Outside Il t!.c$o TWO
repre-. ntatiyc classes, ;ho iii.i of which is
clearly within. and the Last of which is
Clearly without, the. pui:,icw al these
clauses, "c lind i'll each al these States Il
host ot rilicrrs whose status j., Ia some
way To bc determined. 1t - inpo.sib;c
here To proceed Dy way Of enumeration,
ana 10 distinguish BY ,i;.mc ali those who
arc imcln9eJ and all those who are oXclud-
ed. All that can lie done j. tl.c rc-cS;l b.
fishing Of some fixed rule. rcc under
the ucccssi,y ut circumspection here i'll
saying "hu are included Within .Lc dis
f;anchi>cment. rather than III saving who
are not included: for where there is doubt.
according to tile ruie OF construction
which has been referred to. that doubt
must be solved i'll favor ns rather than
against the right of the voter. Tie cN-
ciusiOn is au-compreIcn*ivc a. 10 time.
and applies not only to those who were in
Office wien the rebellion commenced, but
To thoso who held the prohibited Offices al
any Hnc previous, although ;hcY may
have ceased To hold such oirice an indct
lion. 1t : founded on the IDEA OF 4 breach
uf oiiicirl trust due to the State as the
author rr donor of the tr;.st. 1t is found
"a, on the idea Of a breach OF trust, not