The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1867-06-05
clause is founded on the oath Of

qualifying clause is founded on the oath Of
Office. =
The oath, as incident to the Office is not
mentioned in the first disqualifying clause,
but the Office alone. But in the second clause
the oath is made to enter as a necessary ele-
mert in order to work disfranchisement, and
It is applied to the same classes of officers
named in the first clause, but the officers
alone: but in the second clause the oath is
made to enter as a necessary element in order
to work disfranchisement, and it is applied to
the same classes of officers named in the filth
clause, and also to others not named in the
first clause that is to officers of the United
States It is an oath to support the Consti-
tuition of the United States. and it is clearly
provided by this clause that if this oath has
been taken by member of State Legisla-
ture or by an executive or judicial officer of
any State, then such person violating that
oath and engaging in instruction shall be
d stranchised.
There is some obscurity in these clauses
and room for doubt whether disqualification
under the first clause would arise in the case
of member of a State Legislature or on
any executive or judicial officer of any State
who had not taken an oath to support the
constitution of the United States.
incline to the opinion that this oath is
put as an essential thing, the breach OF
which by Instruction against the United
States, violates the trust imposed by itupon
the officer. But this clause, as far as the ex-
ecutive or judicial officers of State are con-
cerned, does not enlarge the class subject to
disfranchisement.
The officer breaking the oath which works
disfranchisement, must also be a judicial or
executive officer of State, according to the
rule hereinbefore established.
do not apprchend that any practical
question will arise here, for by the constitu-
| ton of the United States this oath is requi-
| red to be taken by I" the members of the
several State Legislatures and all executive
and judicial officers both of the United States
and of the several States" And in these ten
States the same oath was required as to
members of the Legislature and the execu-
tive and judicial officers of the State.
| This brings me to the question, who is to
be considered san officer of the United
| States" within the meaning of the clause
under consideration. Here the term officer
is used in its most general sense and without
any qualification as to legislative or execu-
tive or judicial; and I think, as here used,
it was intended to comprehend military as
well as civil officers of the United States
who had taken the prescribed oath. mas
much as the violation of the official oath
and the official trust has relation to fealty to
the United States, which is broken by re-
bellion against the United States; the rea-
son is apparent for including all officers of
the United States, and for making the dis
| nj hon,
sve as to their standing, as they do in more
direct relation and trust to the United States
than the officers of State.
now come to consider what is the mean
ing and scope of the disqualification arising
upon that part of the oath which requires
the person to state that he has not " engaged
in instruction or rebellion against the Unit
ed States, or given aid or comfort to the en-
emies thereof / must here repeat what has
been said before that to work disqualified
ton, two elements must concur.
First. Holding the designated office tate
or Federal, accompanied by an official oath
to support the Constitution of the United
States.
Second Engaging in the rebellion against
the United States, or giving aid or comfort
to its enemies.
Both OF these must not only concur, but
they must concur in the order of time men
toned. FIRST, the officer and the oath, and
afterwards" engaging in rebellion, or Civ
ing aid or comfort. A person who has hello
an Office within the meaning of the law, and
has taken official oath, and who has not af-
forwards participated in rebellion may
very safely take this oath, and so, too, thu
person who has fully participated in the re
bellion but has not, prior thereto, held al
Office and taken the official oath, may witt
equal safety take this oath.
My duty here is simply one of construc
ton do not deem it proper to enter upor
any question of the constitutionality of thi
part of the act. Taking it as granted fo
the purpose of construction, that Congress
has the right to impose such an oath, it il
not only allowable, but imperative, that
keep in view its essential characteristic.
is something more than legislative act il
derogation of an existing right. 1t is in eff
feet law which takes away an existing
right as a consequence of acts done at
, prior sine, and which at the time they wer
done entailed no such consequences. In tn
late case before the Supreme Court of tn
United States upon the test oath prescribed
[ by an act of Congress to be taken by law
yers, by which the exclusion from the RICH
7 to practice their profession was made to arts
! upon prior participation in the rebellion tn
Court said GAS the oath prescribed canno
be taken by these parties, the act as sgains
them operates as a legislative decree of per
, petual exclusion, and exclusion from any o
f the professions or any of the ordinary avo
, cations of life for past conduct, can be re
. garded in no other light than as punishment
for such conduct" The exaction of the oatl
is the mode provided for ascertaining tn
parties upon whom the act is intended to op
E crate, and instead of lessening increases it
Objectionable character All enactments o
, this kind partake of the nature of bills o
: pains and penalties.
| The court further say: "The deprivation
g of any rights civil or political, previously en-
: joyed, may be punishment, the circumstance
l attending and the causes OF the deprivation
5 determining this fact" The characteristic
8 of this clause of the act are, therefore, retro
J, spective penal and punitive. Of cours
: there can be no question as to the rule ofcon
!: struction which is here to be applied. Thos
' who are expressly brought within its opera
: ton, cannot be saved from its operation
: Where, from the generality of terms of tn
: description or for any other reason, reason
I able doubt arises, that doubt is to be resolves
2 against the operation of law and in favor Q
/ the voter What acts, then, within the mean
e ing of the law make party guilty OF en-
: gazing in insurrection or rebellion agains
o the United States or giving aid and comfol
to the enemies thereofa
d The language here comprehends not onl
d the late rebellion, but every past rebellio