The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-04-07

| q. Inc appointment OF W. ID. Smith as reg
ister for the parish Of Jefferson, and Of L N
Brownson for the parish Of Union, Louisiana,
made by Special Orders No. 81, current series,
from those headquarters, are hereby revoked,
said persons being absent from the State,
3. The following named persons are hereby
appointel as members Of the boards OF regis.
trAtion for the parishes snd distri ts respec.
lively named:
Baton Rouge, casts Wrotuovski
Calcasieu-Goo. X. Bell
Claiborne-wm. York Alice
Jeferson-Fred: Frye.
Madison-Robert Harris.
Orleans, First district. J. Hebort.
| Orleans, Second district-Gso p. Fields.
Orleans, Third district-C. lizard.
Orleans, Fourth district, Theo. Brown.
st, Charles-J. b Bostoek
St. John Biptist-J. Elmundston, Laurent
Martin.
By command Of Major General Hancock.
GEORGE L. HARrsUrr,
Assistant Adjutant General.
Official NATHANIEL BURBASk,
Second Lieut.. 37th infantry, Drevet First Lieut..
U. s. Army, A. A. A. G.
HEApq'ns Firm MILITARY DIsrRrcr, /
NEw ORLEANS. La, March IS, 1868
Special Orders No. 81.
| 49, ePpos" eoeNsouo
made by boards Of registrars Of the last 70.
yised registry In the State Of Texas, having
been forwarded to these headquarters, are
hereby decided and announced as follows:
l. j. NJ. Msxey, Walker county, rejected
BY the board. Claims right to be royistsred
because Of pardon. Section the supple.
mentary reconstruction act, passed July 10,
1867, expressly forbids any registration be.
cause Of pardon, II the applicant would have
been disqualified without any pardon. Ap.
peal rejected. Decision Of the board sus.
tanned.
2. John G. Elston, |. q. Searcy, II. II.
Boone, D. I Davis, and Ben Goodrich, all Of
Grimes county, rejected because tbey wore
notaries public prior to 1861. This Office may
be considered q State office, under general
laws, but the having holden a State or Fed
eral Office before the late war does not Of
iissJ, disqualify one from registration; he
must ''afterward have engaged in insurrec.
ton or rebellion against the United States, or
given aid or comfort TO the enemies thereof ~
Section 0. act Of July 10, 1867.
The applicants state that they were never
ut any time afterwsrd engaged in rebellion
a., sgainst the United States. The decision
Of the board Is reversed, and tho applicants
will DO admitted to registry.
8. James A. Baker, Walker county, rejected
because he held the Office Of alderman. This
is not an Office under general law. Appeal
sustained. The applicant will be admitted to
registry.
4. DR.. Y. c .mpbell, Walker county, rejected
because he was q councilman Of a village.
This Is not an Office under q general law. APP
peal sustained. Applicant will be admitted
to registry
8. J. d. Cunningham, Walker county, re.
jected because he was county commissioner,
. an Office under n general law Of the State, and
y rs such, applicant would not DO entitled tc
a register, II no had nfterward engaged In rebel
lion, &c. But In the absence Of proof Of th,
l. fact he would be entitled to register. The re
port of tho board Of registrars states that "h,
!. was rejected by former board for the reason
/. that he was q county commissioner, and the
/. present board rejects him without eIamina.
ton" This decision was wrong. fhe nppli
cant Is entitled to registry, II 1t Is shown that
r he did not afterwards engage in Insured
/, tion, a..
g. John J Davis, Richard Bass, John Hill,
, Samuel l. Kelsey, Green ii. Wood. all Of Wal
. ker county rejected by board. These casei
are similar In principle to the case Of ]. d
Cunningham, above cited. and the same action
will be taken therein.
!. Edward DOugherty, Victoria county, ant
n NJ G. Rogers, Huntsville county, rejected By
4 the board en- the ground that pardon did no
b qualify him to register These cases are tn,
Q Same as that of J. NJ. Marey, above cited
and the decision Of the board is sustained
9 They arenot entitled to registry.
i 8. ]. II sneethsr and 7. W. Robinson
/ Walker county, and George +, Rodgers. Vic
II toria county, and James sIrien, Galveston
d county, rejected by board, because they hay
:, held the ofi,o of aldermen similar 10 prin
/. cipie to the case Of James A. Baker, abov,
It cited. The applicants are entitled to registry
# o. W. d. Kemp, Fayette county, was 70
Z jected by the board because he was q lieuten
4 ant Of militia before tho war, and tben wen
J.; into the rebellion. Ho is not disfranchise,
d by the acts Of Congress. An officer In th,
militia Ia not an executive or judicial officer
). His appeal Is sustained, and he 10 entitled t.
l. registry.
y 10. W. +, C. Gsilispie, lafayette county,
10 rejected by the board. His case Is similar II
Il principle to that of W. b. Kemp, above cited
d and the same action will be taken.
IL. J. W, Mckinney, Cameron county. wa.
y rejected because no wa. o sergeant in th
D. ranging service Of the United States prior t.
, February, 1891, and afterwards took part IL
.. the rebellion. Sergeants 10 tho army are no
RS "oficers" in the sense ofthe acts Of Congress
!. and the applicant Is not disfranchised b.
them. The decision ofthe board Is reversed
J.. The applicant will be admitted to registration
d. IL. John Sutherland, Jackson county, he'll
both a judicill and executive Office, and after
a. ward voted for the ordinance OF secession. an
n was in the Confederate army. lie was prop
"a erly rejected The decision Of the board
n sustained.
II 10 d. 7. Moss, Lavacca county, was re
a jected because he was a member Of tho con
u vention which voted secession. lie is not en-
10 braced in any class disfranchised by the Aoti
q lie may be registered II he can take the oat
q prescribed by the act Of March 20, 1867.
i. H. George W Glascock. Travis county, re
"a jected because he has been in the contedsrat
, army. He Is entitled to registry II he ca
q take the oath prescribed by the acts Of Marc
!. 20, 1867.
3. IL. J. r, Pettus, Fort Reno county. reject
ed by the board because he had been rejecte
,s by a previous board, on account Of his hayin
d been an alderman in 1859. This case is th
O. same In principle as that Of james A. Baker
IL previously cited The applicant Is entitled
in DO registered under the acts Of Congress.
rs 10. James A JCurdan aud John NJ Briggs
10 Rusk county, were refused registration on th
n allegation that they were disloyal They neve
q had an office Of any kind. Were once regis
=. tered, but their names mad been stricken fror
the registry on the ground Of disloyalty. The
a had taken the required oath. Appeal sus
4 tanned. They are entitled to registry.
4 II. d. s. Whiting Grimes county; josef
Boone, Montgomery county l.. F. Roberts
Seguin county @. W. Strather. Galveston
;, county and William L Calender Yietori
- county; wero refused registration on tn
4, ground that they had been clerks Of election
= y This being an Office under general law, th
" | d. - L.. hn. Ia h.