Year: 1864

rebellion. On the contrary, the procla-


nation presupposes that those to whom
/ it is addressed have been voluntarily par


ticipants in the rebellion. 1t IS the sin


ners who are called to repentance, not the


righteous. AZ


The inference which would, naturally
| be drawn from the language Of the proc


lamation, that any rebel who is not en-


braced in the excepted classes may al
| his option take the amnesty oath, and
avail himself of the rights and privileges
/ which it confers; but circular letter Is
sued by the Attorney General, and ad-
I dressed to district attorneys, under date
| of February 10Th, 1864, has so far quail
/ fed the general terms employed In that
document as to make it condition, where
| legal proceedings have been commenced,
I that they shall not be discontinued II there
/. is .good reasons to believe that the oatn
1 has been taken for the mere purpose OF


obtaining the possession OF personal
/ property seized under the confiscauon
acts, with the intent to remove. it from


the subsequent reach of the officers OF
| the law but the grounds for suspectlng
| the unlawful purpose must be reported to
/ the Office Of the Attorney General. Ii IS
! evident that the mere fact that the party
asking the benefits of the amnesty has
/ property would be no legitimate ground
/ for suspicion, and suspicion would be ex-
! cluded if he owned real estate.


! We have been led to these remarks In


consequence of having learned that a
somewhat arbitrary construction has been
given to the law in North Carolina. and
], that persons who have abandoned the
rebel cause, and returned within our lines,
are excluded from the privilege of taking
the oath. There is no United States court


in that State, and, although great deal
Of rebel property has been seized and
temporarily rented or occupied by the
military authorities, and the commercial
agent, none Of it has been or could have
been confiscated There are no cases,
therefore, in which the lights of third per
sons can have intervened. There is no
person there to whom the circular of the
Attorney General could have been prop
erly sent, and we presume that the whole
subject of the amnesty proclamation has
been in the hands of the military authori-
ties But if it is the duty of military au-
thorities to receive the oath of repentant


rebels, or to deny the privilege Of the
oath for the reasons specified by the At


torney General, they should also conform
to his instructions by reporting to that
officer the grounds upon which any par


ties are excluded We understand that
this has not been done. No reports of the
facts upon which the suspicious of insin-
cerity are founded have been filed, and
there is therefore no opportunity for re
vising the decision of the Provost Mar
shall or other officer appointed to admin


lister the oath.


The fact is we'll known that, of all the
rebelIious States, North Carolina has the
.least heart in it; that her people are the
most sick of it, and most ready to return
to their allegiance. Ifany portion of the
rebellious South deserves more kindness
and greater degree of conciliation than
another, it is North Carolina, a majority
of whose population is known to be hos


tile to the Confederate organization, if
not ready to return to the Union Rigor
and severity are out of place in dealing


with q people who are disatfected to the
military despots who now hold them in
subiection and from whose control they


will gladly escape. We are aware that
there are malignant rebels in North Car


olina who are capable ofany crime which
may promote their despicable cause; but


they are not the class which will venture


into our lines as general rule. The


possession of property is no evidence


that the party means to forswear himself;


and if it be real estate, it furnishes


guaranty for good behavior. One of the


distinct offers, as a condition of return


IN to allegiance, is the restoration of
property rights, and it is not competent


for any subordinate officer to defeat the
wise and humane purpose of the Presi


lent by setting up rule of exclusion
founded on mere suspicion Washington


Chronicle.