Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1867-06-06

Reconstruction Acts-- AttOfney Gene
Jes raPS Opinion.

: .
& Many learned divines hold that the BIZ
BILE may be read most proGtably without
the aid of commentaries. We suppose
that all who have read Mr.. Stanbery's
opinion will hold that the reconstruction
acts themselves may be more easily under
stood than his comments upon them. The
Attorney Generals too timid. lie speaks
not as Zone having authority" It is true
his opinions are not absolutely binding up
on the courts or registers; yet he was ex-
pected to pronounce definite judgment
upon the propositions submitted to him.
This he has not done. We shall condense
his opinien into short compass.
L. Mr.. Stanbery gives US, in the first
point that we shall notice, good spell
OF rho tsargument from consequences. !"
Notwithstanding his clear admission that
the acts recognize a difference between
members of a Legislature and members of
a State Convention, and Notwithstanding
that the latter are not DISTINGUISHED in
terms, he includes the latter among the
DISTINGUISHED; not because the
language of the act justifes such
inclusion, but because he "can imagine no
official legislative position in which the
duty of allegiance was more distinctly vio-
lated"
2. He concludes that militia officers are
not DISTINGUISHED. Mr. Stanbery says, in
connection with this point, that persons
who 'became military officers during the
rebellion" 'come which that other clause
of disqualification which refers to partici-
patton in the rebellion" This is care
less statement, and will mislead some peo-
pie. The mere fact Of holding any sort
of office under the Confederate Government
does not disfranchise or disqualify any
man; nor does Mr.. Stanbery mean to say
that it does. lie means, Of course, that if
such persons had before the war taken an
oath to support the Constitution of the
United States, then the holding Of such
Confederate Office would disfranchise them.
He says distinctly elsewhere, as we shall
show, and as every one knows, that it
takes bot1s acts to disfranchise any man.
3. Municipal officers are not disfranchi-
sed. Oar city officers are, therefore, safe
enough.
4. While members of the Legislature
are disfranchised, officers Of the LegisIa-
ture are not. This decision settles the
question as to Messrs. Davis and Bigger,
the Clerks Of the two Houses of the Lee
gislature, and also as to the Public Printer
and other Legislature officers, if such there
be. -
5. The Acknowledgement decides that all
executive and judicial officers of a State
who are not, in popular language, charac-
terized, as county officers" are disfran-
chised while as to those who are thus
characterized, he is not yet ready to ex-
press an opinion. Sheritis, clerks, justi-
ces of the peace, coroners, commissioners
of the revenue, &C., must wait awhile be-
fore they can be informed as to their po-
lltical condition.
6. Commissioners of the Board of Pub
lie Works, Visitors of the Virginia Mill
tary Institute and of the University of Vir-
ginia, Directors and Officers Of the Asy-
lums for the Insane and for the Deaf and
Dumb and the Blind, Directors, Railroad
and Canal Directors, Notaries Public, Com
missioners to take acknowledgements of
deeds, &C., are not disfranchised
We have repeatedly reminded our read
ers that it requires taoo acts to disfranchise
any man. Upon this point the Attorney
General says:
Il must here repeat what has been. said
before, that to work disqualification two
elements must concur First, holding the
designated office, State or Federal, accom-
panied by an official oath to support the
Constitution Of the United States and Sc
cond, in engaging in rebellion against the
United States, or giving aid or comfort to
its enemies. Both these must not only
concur, but they must concur in order of
time mentioned-frst the office and the
oath, and afterwards engaging in rebellion
or giving aid or comfort. A person who
has held an Office within the meaning of
this law, and has taken the official oath,
and afterwards participated in rebellion,
but has not prior thereto held an Office and
taken the official oath, may with equal
safety take this oath"
Mr.. Stanbery's statement that persons
are disfranchised who adhered to the enc
mics of the United States or gave them aid
and comfort in the war of 1912, or the
war with Mexico, is true enough, but not
by any means important. Wedo not sup
pose that any such persons can be found
now. Perhaps he intended to give Massa-
chusetts and Ohio hard rap over the
knuckles, seeing that there was said to be
a great deal of "moral treason" in those
two States during the Mexican war;
After showing what officers are disfran-
chised # they have ever engaged in res
bellion or given aid and comfort to the enc
mics of the United States, the Attorney
General tells us what is meant by 'sengag-
ing in rebellion" We quote -.
IL. Il am of opinion that the holding Of a
simple judicial office, or other executive
Office or public employment as are Of a
purely civil character, such as county Off
GERS, municipal officers, and all others of a
like nature which were not '.created for
the purpose of more effectually carrying
on hostilities,' and which did not involve
the performance of duties expressly in
furtherance of the rebellion, do not, with,
in the meaning of this part Of the oath, fix
on the incumbent the guilt of engaging in