The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-06-04

In the first clause and also to others not na"eu
in the first clause-that is to officers OF tue o
S. 1t is an oath to support the Cons'i'o,ioa ~
the United States, and it is clearly prosiue0 ~
this clause that, if this oath has oeen 'aAeu ~
member of a State Legislature, or oy an exec
utive or judicial officer of any State, then such
persor violating that oath aud engaging 10 ID
surrectiou shall be disfranchised. There Is
some obscurity in these clauses and room LOT
doubt whether disqualification under the nrst |
clause would arise in the case of member OF
State Legislature, or any executive or Judiciai
officer of any Stste, who had not taken an oath
to support the constitution Of the United States
l incline to the opinion that this oath Is put as
an essential thing, the breach OF which, oy III
surrection against the u. S, violates the trust
imposed by it upon the officer; but this clause
so far Is the executive or judicial officers CT a
State are concerned, does not enlarge the class
subject 10 disfranchisement. The officer break
ing the oath which works disfranchisement must
also be judicial or executive officer of State,
according to the rule hereinbsfore established
/ do not spprehend any practical question Will
arise here for, by the Constitution OF the Cnlted
States, this oath is required to be taken by the
members of the several State Legislatures ana
all executive and judicial officers both OF the U.
s. and of the several States; and In these ten
States the same oath was required as to mem.
judicial officers of the State.
This brings me to the question Who Is to
be considered an officer of the United States,
within the meaning of the clause under con
sideration? Here the term officer Is used In
its most general sense and without any quah-
cation, as legislative or executive or Judicial,
and think, as here used, it was intended to
comprehend military as we'll as civil officers of
the United States, who bad taken the prescribed
oath, inasmuch the violation of the official
oath and the official trust has relation to tealty
to the United States, which is broken by rebel
lion against the United States The reason is
apparent for including all officers of the United
States, and for making the disfranchisement
more general and comprehensive to them
standing as they do in more direct relation and
trust to the United States thar the officers OF
State.
now come to consider what is the meaning
and scope of the disqualification arising upon
that part of the oath which requires the person
TO state that be has not engaged IN instruction
or rebellion against the United States, or given
aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. must
here repeat what has been said before, that, to
work disqualification, two elements must concur:
First, holding the designated office, State or
Federal, accompanied by an Official oath to sup
port the Constitution of the United States; aud,
States, or giving aid or comfort to its enemies
Both these must not only concur, but they must
in the order of time mentioned-hrst the
Office and the oath, aud, afterwards, engaging
in rebellion or giving ait or comfort. person
who has held az office within the meaning Of
this law and has taken the official oath, and who
has no: afterwards participated in rebellion,
may very safely take this oath, and SO, too, the
person who has fully participated in the rebel
lion, but has not prior thereto held an ofhce and
taken the official oath, may with equal safety
take this oath. My duty here is simply one of
construction. do not deem it proper to enter
upon any question of the consttutionality of this
part of the act. Taking it AS granted, for the
purpose of construction, that Congress has the
right to impose such an oath, it is not only
allowable, but imperative, that keep in view
its essential characteristics. 1t is something
more than legislative act in degradation of an
existing right-it is, in effect, a law which takes
away an existing right as consequence OF acts
done at prior time, and which at the time
they were done eotaed no such consequence.
In the late cases before the Supreme Court OF
the United States upon the test oath prescribed
by an act of Congress to be taken by lawyers,
by which the exclusion from the right TO prac-
tice their profession was made to arise upon
prior participation in the rebellion, the Court
by these PARTIES the act against them opcr-
-ates as legislative decree of perpetual exclu-
sion-an exclusion from any of the professions
any of the ordinary avocations Of life for past
conduct, can be regarded in no other light than
as punishment for such conduct The exaction
of the oath is the mode provided for ascertainiug
the parties upon whom act is intended to
operate, and instead of lessening in cases its
Objectionable character, all enactmeuts of this
kind 2artake of the nature of bills of pains aud
penalties" The Court further says: The
deprivation Of any rights, civil or POLITICAL pre-.
siously enjoyed, may be punishment the cir
cumstances attending and the causes of the
deprivation determining this fact" The char
acterlstics of this clause of the acts are there
fore retrospective, penal aud punitive. OF
course, there can be no question as to the rule
of construction which is here to be- applied
Those who are expressly brought within its
operation cannot be saved from its operation.
Where, from the generality of terms of descrip-
ton, or for any other reason, a reasonable doubt
arises, that doubt is to be resolved against the
operation of the law aud in favor of the voter.
What acts, then, within the meaning Of the
law, makes party guilty of engaging in insur-
rectlou or rebellion against the United States,
giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof?
The language here comprehends not only the
late rebellion, but every past rebellion or insur-
rection which has happened in the United
States. So, too, it comprehends every forei gn
war in which the United States has at any time
been engaged. The first part of the sentence
covers the case of domestic war existing in the
form of rebellion insurrection, whilst the last
part applies to foreign war. The words "giving