The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-02-02


in which, after saying-what we cordially
endorsg-->35.at it will be to the interest of
"yir2ig.;c chat as few persons be disquali-
"fea f.on holding Office as possible" he
asks U.s.
Isl. T'A-. reasons have you for asserting
that &,,e terms executive and judiciai OH
GERS were employed in the fourteenth,
amenGue... because they had been USED
in agt:ola {, section of the Federal Con-
sti.ut;o. Since this is a penal statute,
wou.S J, 20. rather be in accordance with
tic ge.eL.. principles of law to construe 1t
Smelly as meaning those and none other !!
MS ..::.- question We answer decidedly
in tie a..i:matiye. The former we answer
byte.eyr;ny our correspondent to the iden-
.itv a lie language employed in the two
cases. s2i 10 the further fact that in fra
1niag Law 10 disqualify persons who had
once violated an oath of Office Congress
would necessarily look to the Constitution
tosce what officers had been required to
take such en- oath.
z. Did the ministerial officers of the
Static Wit, Commemorative attorneys,
sher:fFs, clerks, &c.-take the oath to sup
rort the Federal Constitution because OF the
third section Of the sixth article OF the Con-
stitufion or because of the eleventh section
of the thirteenth chapter Of the Code OF
Virginia :
The latter was made the law of Virginia
because the former Was in existence. so
these officers really took the oath because
of the former. But our correspondent begs
the question by assuming that the officers
named are ministerial officers. Of this,
more hereafter.
3. Does not the act of Congress OF July
18th, 1867, clearly indicate that the terms
"executive and judicial" do not embrace
the above officers when it declares that the
"oath mentioned shall be construed to in
cludc all civil Offices created by law for the
administration of any general Law of State,
Or for the administration OF justice
We think not. The words shall be con-
strucd' we've intended to be mandatory
to leave the district commanders no choice
in the matter. This form of expression was
used because some Of the district command
ers had construed the law as our correspond
ent does. Here is the whole section re-
ferred to:
SECTION G. That the true intent and
raeuninq of the oath prescribed in said sup
Elementary act is, among other things, that
no person who has been q member Of the
legislature Of any State, or who has held
nny executive or judicial office in any State,
whether he has taken an oath to support
the Constitution Of the United States or not,
and whether he was holding such Office at
the commencement of the rebellion or bad
held it before, and was afterward engaged
in instruction or rebellion against the
United Stages, or giving aid and comfort to
the eneuiic, thereof, is entitled to be regis |
tered OF vote and the words " executive or
judicial once e, any State" in said oath
lncntionci, slall he construed to include all
civil oGIcos created by law for the admins |
srat!on OF any general law of O State, or
for tic administration of justice"
But hotc~e his act was passed-to wit,
June e, lsG7--tAe Attorncy-General of the
United o,atea Who had at first supposed,
as our cc..3.y ondcnt does, that county |
officers =. ce z-ot tiisfranchised, reconsidered
his opinion, 2nd issued supplemental one,
in w1!ic. 10 sid:
"Al, the executive or judicial officers of
uny SSala 40 took an oath to support the |
Consti.ut..4 q the United States are sub |
iect t. G!:o4al iiication, and in these IN |
clude cyat.iy ulcers, as to whom made u
reservation l. the opinion heretofore given.
L. I
the conclug-on that they are subject to dis |
Qual.fcG bon If they were required to take |
US La.t q Gheir official oath the oath to |
support the Constitution of the United |
State2.'
M. 6-AEBGiY named the employments |
not included n the terms Executive and |
julici., o...els" TO wit, commissioners to
lay CIT s3als, commissioners of public |
works, yis- oIs of State institutions, direc-
tors Of State banks or other State institu-
tions, examiners of banks, notaries public,
commissioners to take acknowledgements Of
deeds, ana lawyers. Mr.. STANBERY seems
to include all civil State or county officers
of every sort, but says persons not in office,
but merely in the employment of the State
such as those engaged in the civil employ
ments named above-are not disqualified.
Military officers, and mere municipal off,
: s sses as policemen, ETC., he says, are also
not disfranchised lnow disqualified. He
seems to assume that there could be no
doubt that all county officers are either ex-
ecutive or judicial.
4. I cannot see how it is that because
"the whole government of the State is ex-
preesly divided into three departments,
''every officer must be included under one
or the other Of these general heads.'' To-
which head do the ministerial Offices, those
Offices the duties of which may be dis
charged by deputies, las the duties of nei-
Their the executive, legislative, Or judicial
CAM and the military Offices of the State
belong? See Bouyier's Law Dictionary, on
the various Offices.
See above as 10 who are judicial and
executive officers. There may be ministe-
rial officers in either the Legislative, the ex-
eeatiVe, or the judicial department of the
Government. The clerks of the two Houses
Of the General Assembly are ministerial
officers in the legislative department. The
clerks in the Auditors and Treasurer's
Offices are ministerial officers in the execu-
tive department. They have no fixed tenure
Of Office, being removable at the will of the
executive Officers il the one case and of the
one or the other House of the Legislature in