Year: 1867

proper here to fix some clear ideas of the gen.


eral intent of these acts, and by what right OF
construction, strict or liberal, that intent may


best be arrived at. The intent, as expressed, is
to enable the people of each of these States to


frame Constitution for the State by the exer.
else of the right of suffrage There are clauses
of the act giving the right by general terms of
description to the people generally, and espe-
clally to those who have never enjoyed the right
before. There are other clauses of the act
which, by general terms, take away this right of
suffrage from those who have always enjoyed it.
The rule of construction as to the clauses which
give the ri sht must be liberal, and, as therein,
| tine general terms are not to be restricted. But
as to those clauses which derogae from the ex-
isting right, the rule of construction must be
strict-that some should be excluded who are
not clearly within the letter and intent.


| begin here with the inquiry whether off,
GERS Of the military of the State are embraced
within these terms of description, and have no
doubt they are not. Certainly Congress, as to
the officers of State, was not content to use the
terms at large and without qualification. IF
Congress had intended to qualify, the usual
words to manifest that intent would have been
adopted, and the words would have been "the
judicial and executive, the civil military eff
GERS of the State. Accordingly we find that
when that was purposed, as we see it was in the
Sd section Of the constitutional amendment, in
article 4th, Congress expresses that purpose
very clearly. That section provides that no
person shall be a senator or representative in
Congress, or elector of President or Vice Presi-
dent or hold any Office, civil or military, under
the United States, or under any State, who, as
a member of any State Legislature, or an ex-
ecutive or judicial officer of any State, took an
oath to support the Constitution Of the United
States, and shall have engaged in insurrecton
or rebellion against the same, or given aid and
comfort to the enemies thereof. This 3D. Sec
ton is expressly referred to more than once in
these acts. 1t is made in fact part of these
acts. Its language is followed, word for word,
in these disquaIifylng clauses as far as was prac
tcable, except in the particular in which one is
made to apply to eligibility, and the other to
the right to vote. When, therefore, we fnd
that Congress, in declaring what persons shall
be disfranchsed from holding any Office, ex-
prcssly includes military as well as civil officers,
as in the I'd section of the amendment, and in
providing what persons shall be disfranchised
from voting who held office, omit to mention
military officers, We cannot escape the conclu-
sion that military officers were not here within
their contemplation. 1t is impossible to i'm
agine case in which the construction from laws
10 pari materia has more cogent application,
for it is evident here that the law maker, in
framing disqualification for voters, took special
cognizance of the Sd section of the amendment
and weighed it word by WORD, following it lite
rally for the most part, and rejecting deliberate
ly the very word intended to embrace military
officer. 1t must be borne in mind that We are
here considering the class of military officers,
who were such prior to the rebellion, when the
- e Al
militia, not that class who became military Off
GERS during the rebellion. AS to this last class,
they all came under that other clause of dis
qualification which applies to participation in
rebellion.


Having the inquiry thus circumscribed to civil
officers, TIE question recurs what civil officers are
to be brought within the terms executive or ju-
dicial officers of State" They clearly include,
So far as executive officers are concerned all such
officers generally known by the proper des-
cripton Of State officers or officers of State In
one sense, and in popular sense, description OF
the executive officers of State is applicable to a
well known class-the Governor, Lieutenant Gov
ernor, Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary and State Of
ficials proper, who exercise executive functions at
the seat of Government. lam not prepared to say
that only these proper State officials come within
this term Of description; nor am prepared, as to
the Judicial officers of the State, to limit the des
cription to Judges Of courts whose jurisdiction ex
tends over the entire State. | must content my
self in saying of these Offices executive or judicial


that they are clearly within the meaning Of the
law. Now changing the inquiry from an affir-
NATIVE to negative process, such officers as usu-
ally pass under the description municipal, do not
come within the puryiew of the act, such as t',-
officers of cities, towns, villages or subordinate
municipal divisions, whether their functions are
executive and judicial or as is sometimes the case
where the same officer acts in both capacities
Outside of these two representative classes, the
first of which is clearly within, and the last o
which is clearly without the purview of these
clauses, we find in each of these States host 0
officers whose status is in some way to be deermin
| ed. 1t Is impossible here to proceed by way o
enumeration and to distinguish by name all those
who are included and all those who are excluded
All that be done is the reestablishing of fsom'
| fixed rule.


| feel under the necessity of ofcircumspecton her'
| in saying who are included within the disfran
ch isement rather than in saying who are not in
cluded, for where there is doubt, according TO TIN
rule of construction which has been referred to
that doubt must be solved in favor OF rather thar
| against the right of the voter. The exclusion ]
all comprehensive as to time, and applies not onl.
! to those who were in Office when the rebellion
commenced, but to those who held the prohibite'
offices at any time previous, although they ma.
have ceased to hold such Office an indefinite NUN


Der Of years prior to the rebellion. 1t is founde


On the idea of breach of official trust due 10 th


State as the author or donor of the trust. 1t
/ founded on the idea Of breach of trust not a,


rising merely from allegiance citizen, but iron
duty to the State in direct official relation t


that State, and through that to the Federal Gov
! ernment, SO far as this designates BY name th