Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1867-06-07
RECONSTRUCTION!!

United States Attorney General!!
WHO ARE LSFRANCHLSED!
INTERESTING TO EVERYBODY!
lcoNcLUDED.)
I begin, then, with the enquiry, Whether
officers Of the military ofxthe State are en-
braced within these terms "a Inscription
And I have nodoubt they arenot. Certain
ly Congress, asto the officers Of a State, was
not content to use the terms at large and with
out qualification IF Congress had intended
to qualify, the usual words to manifest that
intent would have been 'sthe judicial and ex-
ecutive, the civil or military, officers of the
State" Accordingly, we find that when that
was purposed, as we see it was IN the third
section of the constitutional amendment, in
article fourth, Congress expresses that pur
pose very clearly. Thatsection provides that
no person shall be senator or representative
in Congress, or elector Of president 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 Constitu-
ton of the United States, and shall have en-
gagged in instruction or rebellion against the
same or given aid and comfort to the enemies
thereof. This third section is expressly re-
ferred to more than once in these acts. 1t is
made, in fact, part of these acts. It's Ian
guaee is followed word for word in those dis
Qualifying clauses as far as was practicable,
except in 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 declaring what persons shall be
disfranchised from holding any Office, express
" includes military as we'll as.eivll officers,
as in the third section Of the amendment, and
in providing what persons shall be disfran-
chised from voting who held any Office omit
to mention military officers, We cannotescape
the conclusion that military officers were not
here within their contemplation. It is impos-
rible to imagine case in which the construc-
ton from laws in pdai mdte,ia has more CO.
gent application, for. it is evident here that
the law maker, in framing disqualification
for voters, took special coenlzance ofthe 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 q military officer.
It must be borne in mind that we are here
considering the class of military officers who
we're such prior to the rebellion, when the
Office was lawful, and who were officers Of the
militia; not that class who became military
officers during the rebellion. As.to this last
class, they all come under that other clause
Of disqualification which applies to participa-
ton in rebellion. q
Having the inquiry thus circumscribed to
civil officers, the question recurs, What CIVIL
officers are to be brought within the terms
Executive or judicial officers of a State ?"-
They clearly include, so far as executive Off
GERS are concerned, all such officers as are
generally known by the proper description Of
State officers, or officers Of State. In one
sense, and in a popular sense, description
of the executive officers Of State is app1ica
BILE to a well known class-the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, Treasurer,
Secretary and State officials proper, who ex-
ercise executive functions at the seat Of gov
eminent.
I am not prepared to say that only these
prope State officials come within this term OF
description, nor am prepared, as to the ju.
dicial officers of the State, to limit the des-
cription to Judges of courts whose jurisdic-
ton extends over the entire State. | must
content myself in saying Of these officers,
executive or judicial that they are clearly
within the meaning of the law. Now,
changing the inquiry from an affirmative to
negative process: such officers as usually
pass under the description municipal do not
come within the purview Of the act-such as
officers Of cities, towns, villages, or subordf-
nate municipal divisions, whether their func
tons are executive and judicial, Or, as is
sometimes the case, where the same officer
acts in both capacities. Outside of these
two representative classes, the first of which
is clearly without the purview of these clau-
SEES. we find in each Of these States host of
officers whose status is in some way to be de-
termined It is impossible here to proceed
by way of enumeration and to distinguish
by name all those who are included and all
those who are excluded All that can be
done is the re-establishing of some fixed rule
[ feel under the necessity Of clrcumspection
here in saying who are included within the
disfranchisement, rather than in saying who
are not included; for where there is doubt,
according to the rule of construction which
has been referred to, that doubt must be
solved in favor Of rather than against the
RIGHT of the voter. The exclusion is all
comprehensive as to time, and applies not
only to those who were in office when the
rebellion commenced, but to those who held
the prohibited Offices at any time previous,
although they may have ceased to hold
such Office an indefinite number of years
prior to the rebellion. It is founded on the
idea Of breach Of official trust due to the
State as to the author or donor Of the trust
It is founded on the idea Of breach Of trust,
not arising merely from allegiance as citi-
zen, but from duty to the State in direct
official relation to that State, and through
that to the Federal Government. So far as
this act designates by name the persons who
violate such trust, it is to that class to
whose keeping the trust is especially conf
ded i; that is to say, the persons who were
clothed with the Legislative power. Where
as in this instance there is purpose of ex-