Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1867-06-05

a.State for framing or amendment of its Con
stitulion, would answer TO- the description 9
State Legislature within themeaning of th'
Act. Such q Convention, although it il
clothed with legislative powers, cannot prop
erly be denominated State Legislature, ant
in the Acts now under consideration q Con
vention and Legislature are expressly distin
guished from each other; for they require
the Constitution to be framed by Conyen
ton, aud they require the Legislature Of tht
same State to adopt the constitutional amend
ment. When, then, in the same Acts, they
again use the phrase, Legislature of the
State" they must be understood to use it in
the same sense, and as distinguished from
Constitutional Convention. But as to'those
legislative bodies which passed what are
called ordinances of secession, by whatever
name they may have been called, Iamso
opinion that their members are properly
comprehended within this disqualifying clause
for can imagine no official Legislative posi-
tiun in which the duty Of allegiance was more
distinctly violated.
The next and more difficult enquiry Isl
who is to be considered an officer of theUni
ted States, or executive or judicial officer oi
any State withihthe meaning of these clauses
Varions classes of officers are here intended,
State officers and Federal officers, executive
or judicial officers. NJ legislative officers
are mentioned, except a member Of the State
Legislature or member of Congress. The
descriptions used as to other officers are as to
State officers, that they must be judicial OF
executive, and as to a Federal officer the
terms executive or judicial are not expressed
He is described simply as an officer OF the
United States. 1t has been shown that Fed,
eral officers and State officers are CLASSIFIED
simply in the clauses of the Act under con:
sideration. I deem it profitable and condu-.
Give to q clear order to follow this classitica-
ton. l shall, accordingly, first consider
what State officers are included in the terms
executive or judicial; this phrase is twice
used in these clauses with the superaddsd
description, "in any State" in the first clause,
and "of any State' in the second clause. !
7 think the controlling term of description, il
there is any repugnancy in the terms, must
be taken to be the last, for that is used in the
first clause, and to others besides; it is the
same terms of description used in tie Act Of
Congress of 1889, declaring what State off
GERS are required to take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States and in
the third section Of the constitutional amend;
ment. Both use the same terms of descrip-
ton" Executive and judicial officers of
Stale" The terms are SO general aud indeti;
mite that they fail to express with sufficient
certainty o. designation Of the persons inten-
ded TO be reached. 1t is to be regretted, in
matter of so much Importance, that the rule
Of designation adopted as to members OF Con;
gress, and Of State Legislature, had not
Leen followed up. Or, if that were found i'm
practicable, that some more definite general
rules bad not been declared The uncertain.
ty becomes manifest in the application ofthe
law, and this uncertainty necessitates con.
struclion. The necessity for construction
which arises from the generality of the Law
cannot be better stated than in the Language
of Plowden: Though tie words begenerG
they are to be- reduced te-s- par:ioular;trs
exposition made according to the intent~-
the Act. Those statutes which comprehend
all things in the letter, the sages Of the law
have cxpoundcd 10 extend but TO some things
Those which generally prohibit all people
om doing such an act, they have interpreted
to permit some persons to do it; and those
which include every person in the letter, they
have adudged to reach svme persons only, all
founded upon the intent, collected by consid
Ing tie case and the necessity Of the act
and comparing one part with another, and
sometimes by foreign circumstances" deem
it proper here to fix some clear ideas of the
genera! intent Of these Acts, aid by what
rule of construction. strict or liberal, that in
tent may best be arrived at. The intent, as
expressed, is to enable the people of each OF
these States to frame asConstitution for the
State by the exercise of the right Of suffrage.
There are clauses of the Act giring the right
by general terms of description to lbe people
generally. and especially to those who have
never enjoyed the right before. There are
other clauses Of the Act which, by general
terms, taka away this right of suffrage from
those who have always enjoyed it.
The rule Of construction as to the clauses
which give the right must be liberal, and as
to them the general terms are net TO be re-
stricled, but as to those clauses which dero-
gate from the existing right the rule of con.
struction must be strict, that more should be
excluded who are not clearly within the let
ter aud intent begin, then, with the inqui'
ry whether officers OF the militia of q State
are embraced within these terms Of descrp
ton, and have no doubt that they are not.
Certainly Congress, as 10 the officers of o
State, was mot content to use the term at
large and without qualification, but, as we
see, intended to qualify. The usual words to
manifest that intent would have been adopted,
and the terms would have been the judicial
and executive, the civil or military officers of
the State. Accordingly we find WHEN that
was the purpose, as We see it was in the third
section of the constitutional amendment,
known as article fourteenth, Congress ex-
pressed that purpose very clearly. That Sec
iion provides that no person SHALL be Sena-
tor or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President or Vice President, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United
States, who, as member Of any State Legis
lature, OF as executive or judicial officer @! a
Slate, had taken an oath to support the Con-
sttution of the United States, shall have en-
gagged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort tc 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. Its language
is followed word for word in these disquafy-
ing clauses as far as was possible. 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 Com
gress, in declaring what persons shall be dis
lranchised, from holding any.oiIice, expressly
includes military as we'll as civil officers, as
in third section of amendment and in pro-
viding what persons shall be disfranchised
from voting who held any office, omis to
mention military officers, we cannot escape
the conclusion hat military officers were not
here within their contemplation. 1t is i'm
possible to imagine casc'in which the con-
struction from laws in pari nsateri bas
more 'cogent application, for it is evident
here that the law maker in framing the dis
qualification of voter took special cogni-
,,.-oo &C tho fhird oaot;n, of the amendment