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

the Governor. lne UfncefS Ot WHOM au
speaking are often described in Acts OF AS
semblv by the name Of Commissioners, such
for instance, as are employed in the laying
out Of roads, and canals, and other works o
public nature. Yet all of these perform {
duty, or in ether words exercise an Office
l cannot enumerate ell of the employment
under State authority, which, in my opinion
work no disfrancbisement. wiliname some
by way OF illustration, viz: Boards of Com
mi. sioners of Public Works, Directors o
State Asylurus, Visitors of State Universities
Directors OF State Peniten aries, State Direc
tors of Banks or other corporations, Specla
Commissioners or Agents appointed by tic
Governor or other State authority 10 perform
special duties, as Examiners of Banks. NO
taries OF the Public and Commissioners tc
take Acknowledgements of deeds. The rule
laid down, and these illustrations will, per
haps. be sufficient to determine who come
within its operations.
The next qualifying clause is founded on
the oath OF office. The oath as incidental tc
the office is not mentioned in the first dis
qualifying clause, but the office alone. But
in the second clause the. oath is made to en-
ter as necessary element in order to work
disfranchse'nent, and it is applied to the
same classe, of officers named in the irsI
clause, and nlso to others not named in the
first clause, that is to say, officers Of The
United States. 1t is an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, and it is
clearly provided by this clause that if this oath
has been taken by member of State Leg
'islature, ORGY an executive or judicialofficeI
of any State, then such person violating that
oath and engaging in insurrection shall be
disfranchised. There is some obscurity in
these.c clauses and room for doubt, whether
disqualification under the first clause would
arise in the case of member of State Leg
islature OR any executive or judicial officer oi
any State who had not taken the oath. to sup
port 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 it upon the off
Ger. But this clause, so far as the executive
or judicial officers Of q State are concerned,
does not enlarge the class subject to d;sfran-
chisement. The officer breaking the oath
which works disfranchisemept must also be
a judicial or executive officer OF State. ac-
cording to the rule hereinbefore established
l do not apprehend any practical question
will arise here; for by the CONSTITUTIONS Of the
United States this oath is required to be
taken by 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 those ten States
the same oath was required as 10 members oi
the Legislature and the executive and judi
cial officers of the State.
This brings me to the question, who is TO
be considered an officer of TIE United States
within the meaning OF the clause under con
sideration? Here the term officer is used in
its most general sense ard without any quail
ication rs legislative, or executive: or udi-
cial, and | think. as here used. it was intcn-
ded to comprehend military rs well as civil
officers of The United States, wEo had :akcn
the prescribed oath. 1nasmrch rs 10 the
violation of the official trust has relation 10
fealty to the United States. WHICH is broken
bv rebellion against the United States, tic
reason is apparent for includi {; all officers
Of the Uriicd States, and for making the dis
franchisement more general AID ccmprehen
siye rs TO them, 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 near
ing and scope'of the disqualification arising
upon that part cf the. oath which requires
the person to sate.tGat lie has not engaged
in insurrcction orrebrlIion against the United
States. or given aid and comfort to the enc.
mics thereof. must here repeat, what las
been said before, that to work disqualiica-
ton two elements must concur: First-Hold
ing the designated ciiicc. Stale or Federal
accompanied by an official oath TO Srppor'
the Constitution of the United States ana
sccoud-!:ngaging in rebellion against the
United States, or giving aid or comfort TO
their enemies. Both these must not Only
concur, bat they must concur in the order 0i
time mentioned. First, the officer and the
oath, and afterwards engaging in rebellion OF
giving aid and comfort. a perscn who has
held an Office within the meaning of this law
and has taken the official oath, and who has
no! afterwards, participated in q rebellion
may safely take the oath; and so, too, the
person wac has fully participated in the re-
belion. but has not prior thereto held an Of
flee and taken Tie official oath, may, with safe
ty, taket le oath.
My dusy is simply one of construction.
do not deem it proper to enter upon any
question OF the coustitutionality of this par;
of the Act. Taking itas granted, for the
purpose of construction, that Congress has
imposed such an oath, it is not oily allowa-
BILE, but imperative, that keep in view its
essential characteristics. 1t is something
more than legislative Act in deroaalion Of
an existing right. 1t is, in effect, law wkich
takes away an existing ri=htasa a consequence
of acts done at q prior time, and which, NJ
the time they were done. entailed no such
consequences. In the late cases before the
Supreme Court of The United States upon
the test oath prescribed by an Act Of Con-
gress to oe taken by lawyers. to. which the
exclusion from the right to practice tleir
profession was made to arise upon prior par.
ticisation iu the rebellion, the Court say
ttS lUe OdIu G'tlh'I " I'iNN ~ "
these parties, the Act, as against them, cpe-
rates as Legislative decree of perpetual ex-
clusion--and exclusion from any OF the pro-
fessions or any of the ordinary avocations OF
life for past conduct, can be regarded in no
other light than as punishment for such con
duct. The exaction. of the oath is the mode
provided for asceftaining the parties upon
whom the Act is intended to operate, and in
stead of lcssenins increases its Objectionable
character. AL epactmcnts Of this kin par
take of the nature OF bills of pain, andpen
alties" The Court further says: " The de-
privaton Of any rights, civil or political, pre-,
viously enjoyed may be punishment, the cir
cumstances attending and the causes OF the
deprivation determining this fact. The char
acteristcs of this clause of the Act are there
fore retrospective, penal and punitive Of
course, there can. be no question as to the
rule of construction whicn is here TO be ap-
piled. Those who are expressly brought
within its operations cannot be saved firm
its operations. Where, from the generality