The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-14

HEADQUARTERS FIFTH MILITARY DISTRICT,
New Orleans. March ID, lsGs.
Special Orders No bTl ,--.-..,
I. The following appeals from decisions made
by boards OF registrars Of the last revised regis.
try in the State Of Texas, having been forwarded
20 these headquarters, are hereby decided and an
IL. NJ. Mickey, Walker county, rejected by the
board Claims right 20 he registered because OF a
pardon. Section 7, Of the supplementary recon
struction act. passed July 18Th, 1867, expressly
forbids sny registration because OF pardon, If
the applicant would have been disqualified with.
out any pardon. Appeal rejected. Decision oil
the board sustained.
?. John G. PASTOR. I. G.. searcy, II. II. Boone.
B. +. Davis and Ben Goodrich, all of Grimes coun-
~. rejected because they were notares puohc
prior TO 1861. This Office may be considered
state office, under general laws, but the
having holden a State or federal Office before the
late war does not Of itself disqualify one
from registration; he must " afterwards have en-
gagged in insurrection or rebellion against the
United tates or given aid OF comfort 10 the enc
mics thereOfn Section 6, act Of July 10, 1851.
The applicants state that they were never a.
any time afterwards engaged in rebellion, etc.
against the United States. The decision Of tho
board is reversed, and the applicants viii be ad
g. Jas, A. Baker. Walker county, rejected be.
cause he held the Office Of alderman. This is not
an Office under The general law. Appeal Gus
tanned. The applicant will be admitted to regis
4. DR.. F. Campbell, Walker county, rejected
because he was a councilman Of village. This
is not an Office under general law. Appeal sns-
tanned. Applicant will be admitted to registry.
8. J. ID. Cunningham, Walker county, rejected
because be was a county commissioner, an Office
under general law Of the State, and as such
applicant would not be entitled to register, II he
had afterwards engaged IN rebellion, etc. Bat IN
the absence OF proof Of the fact, be would be
entitled TO register. The report OF the board OF
registrars states that "he was rejected By
former board, for The reason that he vas county
commissioner and the present board rejects him
without eXaminaton.n This decisi0n was wrong.
The applicant il entitled to registry II it is shown
that be DID not afterwards engage in rebel
6. John J. Davis, Richard Bass. John Hill. Sam.
mel L. Kelsey. Green II Wood, all Of Walker
county rejected by the board These cases are
similar in principal TO the case of J. d. Canning
ham, above cited, and the same action VIII be
2. Edward Doneherty, Victoria county, and ".
G. Rogers. Huntsville county, rejected by the
board, on the ground that pardon did not quality
him to register. These cases are the same as that
of John NJ. Msxey, above cited, and the decision
of the board is sustained. They are not entitled
TO registry.
county; and Gao. F. Rodgers. Victoria county !;
and James Sorlen, Galveston county rejected by
hoard because they have filed the Office OF alder
man similar in principle TO the case Of James A..
Baker, above cited. The applicants are EMIT Ell
to registry.
o. w. b. Kemp Fayette county, was rejected
by the beard. because he was a Lieutenant OF mi
lta before the war. and then went into the rebe-
lien. He is not DISTINGUISHED by the acts OF Con-
gress. An officer ia the militia is not an executive
OF judicial ofice. His appeal Is sustained, aud he
is entitled to registry.
10. W. F. Gillespie, Lafayette county, rejected
by the board. His case is similar 10 principle 70
that Of w. Il. Kemp, above cited. aud the same
action will be taken.
IL. j. W. Mckinney, Cameron county, was re.
iected becase he was a sergeant in the ranging
service Of the United States prior to February,
1861. and afterwards took part In the rebelo :.
Sergeants in the army are not "olicers /" In the
sense OF the acts Of Congress- aud the applicant is
not DISTINGUISHED BIZ them. The decision OF the
board is reversed The applicant will be admit
II. John Sutherland, Jackson county, held b 9TH
Judicial aud executive Office, and afterwards
voted for The ordinance Of secession, and vas 10
the Confederate army. He was properly rejected.
The decision Of the board is sustained.
10. b. r. Moss. Iavaea county, was rejected,
because he was member OF the convention
which voted secession. be Is not embraced 10
any class dsfrnnchsed by the acts. He may be
registered. IL he can take the oath prescribed by
the act of March %. 1867.
IA. Geo. W. Glasscock, Travis county. rejected
because he has been in the Confederate army. de
i entitled registry. If he can take the oath pre-
seribed by the acts Of March % 1861.
Is. j. II. Pettus. Fort Reno county. rejected by
the board because be bad been rejected by pre-
vious board, on account OF his having Deen an
alderman in 1889 The case is the same Ia prin-
ciple as that Of Jas A. Baker, previously cited.
The applicant is entitled to be registered under
the acts of Congress.
lG James A. Jourdan and John NJ. Briggs
Rutk county, were refused registration, on the
allegation that they were dislOyal. They never
held an office Of any hind. Were once registered
but their names had been stricken from the regis
try, on the ground Of disloyalty. They had taker
the required oath. Appeal sustained. They are
entitled 20 registry.
IL. q. S. Whining. Grimes county; JOSEPH
Boone, Montgomery county; Il. f. Roberts
Seeuin county; @. w. Strather, Galveston
county, and William L.. Calender. Victori.
county, were refused registration, On the ground
that they had been clerks of election. Thi
being an Office under general law. the decision
of the board is sustained. The applicants are no
entitled TO res istration.
BY command Of MAJOR General Hancock:
GEORGE l.. HARTsUFF.
AssitAnt AdjutAnt General
Onicial:
NATHANIEL BURBANK,
I'd Lieut. 37th infantFy Bvt lst Lieu, U. 3. A
Acting Assistant Adj General.