The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1868-04-04
Important Military Order
REGISTRATION IN TEXAS

IN, :, lhxtract.
1. The following appeals fpo,,
decisions made by Boards of Rso
istrars of the last revised repist,s
in the State of Texas, having hass
forwarded to these heado,,artsssa
are hereby decided and .annon0
ced as follows:
|. J. M. Maxey, Walker eo1e,4
rejected by the board. Cla;ss.s
right to be registered because y
a pardon. Section Z Of the sfC
Elementary reconstruction ~
passed July 10, 1867, expresslr
forbids any registration becanss
ola pardon, if the applicant wonlS
have been disqualified 'withons
any pardon. Appeal. reieoted
Decision of the board sustainsS
2. John G. EastOn, /. G. Searev'
81. Fl. Boone, B. F. Davis asa
Ben Goodrich, all of Grimes cann'
ty, rejected because they were M.
taries public prior to 1861. mi.
office may be considered a State
office, under general Laws. but
the having holden a State.or Fed.
eral Office before the late war
does not of itself disqualify oDa
from registration he must safer.
wards have engaged in insurrec.
ton or rebellion against the Uni.
ted States, or given aid or com.
fort to the enemies thereof.n Ser.
ton 6, act of July 10. 1867.
The applicants state that they
were never at any time after.
wards engaged in rebellion, etc.
against the United States. Thu
decision of the board is reversed.
and the applicants viii be admit.
ted to registry. , !,
3. Jas. A. Baker, Walker eoun-
ty, rejected because he held the
office of alderman. This is not
an office under q general law
Appeal sustained The applicant
will be admitted to registry.
4. DR.. Il. Campbell, Walker
county, rejected because he was a
councilman of a village. This il.
not an Office under a general Law.
Appeal sustained. Applicantgill
be admitted 20 registry. y @mH
5. j. d. Cunningham, Walker
county, rejected because lie was q
County Commissioner, an officer
under a general law OF the State,
and as such, applicant would not
be entitled to register, if he had
afterwards engaged in rebellion,
etc. But in the absence of proail
of the fact, he would be entitled
to register. The report OF the
Board of Registrars states that
'Ehe was rejected by a former
Board, for the reason that he was
a County Commissioners, and She
present Board rejects him with
out examination" This decision
was wrong. The applicant is en-
titled to registry, if it is shown
that he did not afterwards en-
gage in instruction etc. i
&. John j. Davis, Richard Bass,
John Hill, Samuel l. KELSEY.
Green Fl. Wood, all of Walker
county, rejected by board. These
cases are similar in principle to
the case of j. ID. Cunningham,
above cited, and the same action
will be taken therein.
Z. Edward Dougherty, Victoria
county, and M. G. Rodgers, Hunts
vile county, rejected by the board
on the ground that a pardon did
not qualify him to register. These
cases are the same as that OF j.
M. Maxey, above cited, and the
decision of the board is SUBSTANCES
They are not entitled to registry,
s. J. r. Sneether and w. i.
Robinson, Walker county; apd
Geo. +. Rodgers, Victoria county,
and James Sorien, Galveston
county, rejected by Board, becansg
they have held the office OF a
derman; similar IN principle Il
the case of Jas. A. Baker, allow
cited. The applicants are emit
tied to registry. Fahgg
9. w. B. Kemp, Fayette conn
ty, was rejected by the Board, be
cause he was a Lieutenant of Nil
; tia before the war, and then wen
into the rebellion. He is not dis
franchised by acts of Congress
An officer in the militia is not D
Il executive or judicial officer. III
appeal is sustained, and he is en-
titled to registry.
10. w. F. Gellispie, Lafayeto
county, rejected by the Board
His case is similar in principle 2
that of w. B. Kemp, above cited
and the same action viii be takeq
IL. J. w. Mckinney, Gamers
county, was rejected because 2
wos a sar0oant in the rangiB