stitution shall be elected, and the commanding general for the District of Virginia shall provide therefor. That if the Constitution shall be ratified at such election, the Legislature of the State, elected as provided for, shall assemble in the Capitol of said State on the fourth Tuesday after the official promulgation of such ratification by the military officer commanding in the State. That before the State of Virginia shall be admitted to representation in Congress, the Legislature, which may be hereafter lawfully organized, shall ratify the Fifteenth Amendment proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States, and then that all these proceedings shall be approved by Congress. On the 14th of May, 1869, President Grant issued the following proclamation, under the authority given to him by the Act of Congress approved April 10th, 1869: "In pursuance of the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved April 10, 1869, I hereby designate the 6th day of July, 1869, as the time for submitting the Constitution, passed by the convention which met in Richmond, Virginia, on Tuesday, the 3d day of December, 1867, to the voters of said State, registered at the date of such submission-viz., July 6th, 1869-for ratification or rejection; and I submit, to a separate vote, the fourth clause of section 1, Article III, of said Constitution, which is in the following words: ""Every person who has been a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, or who held any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' "This clause shall include the following officers: governor, lieutenantgovernor, secretary of state, auditor of public accounts, second auditor, register of the land office, state treasurer, attorney-general, sheriffs, sergeants of a city or town, commissioner of the revenue, county surveyors, constables, overseers of the poor, commissioner of the board of public works, judges of the supreme court, judges of the circuit court, judges of the court of hustings, justices of the county courts, mayor, recorder, alderman, councilman of a city or town, coroners, escheators, inspectors of tobacco, flour, etc., clerks of the supreme, district, circuit and county courts, and of the court of hustings, and attorneys for the commonwealth; provided, that the Legislature may, by a vote of three-fifths of both Houses, remove the disabilities incurred by this clause, from any person included therein, by a separate vote in each case. "And I also submit to a separate vote section 7 of Article III of the said Constitution, which is in the following words: "'In addition to the foregoing oath of office, the governor, lieutenantgovernor, members of the General Assembly, secretary of state, auditor of public accounts, state treasurer, attorney-general, and all persons elected to any convention to frame a constitution for this State, or to amend or revise this Constitution in any manner, and mayor and council of any city or town, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation; provided, the disabilities therein contained may be individually removed by a three-fifths vote of the General Assembly: 'I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise, the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. The above oath shall also be taken by all the city and county officers before entering upon their duties, and by all other State officers not included in the above provision.' "I direct the vote to be taken upon each of the above-cited provisions alone, and upon the other portions of the said Constitution in the following manner, viz., each voter favoring the ratification of the Constitution, excluding the provisions above quoted, as framed by the convention of December 3d, 1867, shall express his judgment by voting for the Constitution. Each voter favoring the rejection of the Constitution, excluding the provisions above quoted, shall express his judgment by voting against the Constitution. Each voter will be allowed to cast a separate ballot for or against either or both of the provisions above quoted. "In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. "Done at the City of Washington this 14th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1869, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third. "By the President: "HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State. U. S. GRANT." It will be seen that this proclamation restricted the separate votes to be taken to the two clauses which imposed test-oaths and disfranchisements, thus denying the right to a separate vote on the "county-organization," which he had, in the presence of the Committee of Nine, emphatically denounced as the worst feature of the Constitution. This singular and unexpected omission caused great surprise and a good deal of indignation, at the time, among the people of Virginia. The public press had made known to them the substance of what General Grant had said to the Committee of Nine in regard to this particular feature of the Constitution, and of the mischievous consequences which must inevitably follow its adoption. In the absence of all explanation, some were disposed to impute bad faith to President Grant. I did not concur in this view of the subject. I felt sure there must be some strong reason (which it would not be prudent to disclose at the time) which had constrained General Grant to forbear from including this clause among those upon which separate votes were to be taken. And here, in justice to General Grant's memory, it is proper that I should say that, at a later day, I learned from an unquestionable source that I was right in my conjecture. The question, as to what clauses should be voted on separately, was the subject of consideration in the Cabinet. There was little, if any, difference of opinion about the "test-oath" and the "disfranchisement” clauses. But when the "county-organization" clause came up, much diversity of thought developed itself. General Grant was earnestly in favor of submitting it separately, but a majority of the Cabinet had been led to believe that the secret but controlling reason why the people of Virginia wished to strike out that feature, was to rid themselves of the obligation to establish a system of free schools, with which it was so intimately blended. This view of the subject was pressed with so much warmth and earnestness that, although General Grant did not believe it to be true, he found himself obliged, for the sake of harmony in his Cabinet, to yield the point. The President's proclamation became the subject of excited discussion in the newspapers and on the street corners and at every place where half a dozen people met together. The disappointment was keenly felt, and the enquiry was on the lips of every intelligent man, "What shall we do?" This condition of things existed, not only among the younger and more impetuous classes; it prevailed, to a great extent, among the most judicious and thoughtful men of the State. In a word, the public mind was unsettled as to what was the wisest course to pursue. As an illustration of the condition of things which then existed, I will refer to an incident within my own knowledge. Business required my presence in Charlottesville, for a few days, about the time of the issue of the President's proclamation. As I walked from the courthouse to the railroad depot, where I was to take the cars on my return to my home in Staunton, I casually fell in company with an old and valued friend, Professor John B. Minor, one of the most honored professors of the University of Virginia, who was also about to take the cars as far as the University of Virginia. The President's proclamation naturally became the subject of discussion. He inclined to the opinion that it would be best for the people of Virginia to vote down the Underwood Constitution, and said that such seemed to be the sentiment of his brother professors. I differed with him, and we discussed the question until we arrived at the University Station, where the train then stopped for a few moments. As he was about leaving the train, he said to me he had been impressed with some of the views I had presented, and begged me, when I arrived at home, to write him a letter, giving more full expression to them, which I promised to do. On the following day I wrote a letter to him, giving my opinion in regard to the proper policy to be pursued by the people of Virginia, and some of the most urgent reasons in support of it. This letter was not written with any view to its publication. But, in a day or two afterwards, I received a note from Professor Minor, thanking me for the letter, and stating, that as it had aided him and some of his co-professors in coming to a right conclusion on the subject, he thought it might possibly render a similar service to others, and he had, therefore, taken the liberty, without asking my consent, to send it to the Richmond Enquirer for publication. It was, accordingly, published in the Enquirer, and thence re-published in many other papers. The following is a copy of it: LETTER ADDRESSED BY HON. ALEXANDER H. H. STUART TO My dear Sir: STAUNTON, May 24th, 1869. When I casually met you a few days ago, you requested that I would express to you, in writing, my views of the course the people of Virginia should pursue in regard to the questions about to be submitted for their decision under the President's proclamation. I now proceed to do so. There certainly was much disappointment felt when it was ascertained that the President had failed to include the "county organization" clauses of the Constitution among those which were to be submitted to the people to be voted on separately. It was known that the President had expressed strong opposition to these clauses, as tending to segregate the white and colored population by a geographical line, and to impair the productive power of the State, by separating the labor of the country from the capital of the Commonwealth. Hence a confident expectation was entertained that he would afford to the people an opportunity of striking these objectionable features from the proposed Constitution. In the first excitement occasioned by this disappointment, some persons expressed their purpose to try and defeat the whole instrument, by voting, first, to strike out the disfranchising clauses and the test-oath, and then against the instrument thus expurgated. This disposition was not unnatural under the circumstances. Within the four years which have elapsed since the close of the war, the people of Virginia have been subjected to so much disappointment, annoyance, and obloquy, that they have become sensitive and in some degree soured. But, unfortunately, we are in no condition now to take counsel of our wishes. We are not in that happy state in which we can afford to indulge in the luxury of a little ill-temper. We are bound by inexorable necessity to confront the stern realities of our situation, and to make the best we can of them. After giving to the subject the best consideration, I have satisfied myself that it is true policy for the people of Virginia to vote to strike out the test-oath and disfranchising clauses, and then to vote for the adoption of the residue of the Constitution. I admit that it is a painful necessity, yet it is not the less a necessity. It is true that we will not get all that we had expected to get, yet I think it is obvious that by so doing we gain a great deal. The Constitution, even when expurgated, will be a very objectionable instrument, but it is certainly much better than in its original form, and, in my judgment, it is infinitely preferable to no Constitution at all. We can at least live under it for a time, with the certain assurance that after awhile we can greatly improve it. It would tax my time and your patience too largely to give all the reasons which have brought my mind to this conclusion. But I will state one or two of the most prominent: It seems to me that in casting their votes under the President's proclamation, the people are called on to decide where the political power of the State is to rest hereafter, and who are to control her destinies in the future. They will have to elect between three competing propositions, neither of which is entirely acceptable, but there is no other open to us. These propositions are: 1st. To take the Underwood Constitution pure and simple; 2d. To vote the whole Constitution down; 3d. To adopt it, with the disfranchisement and test-oath stricken out. Let us now consider what is the practical bearing and effect of each one of these propositions. Let us see how it will affect the future status of the political power of the Commonwealth. If we allow the Underwood Constitution to be adopted, with all of its disqualifications, it is obvious that we voluntarily disfranchise ourselves for a generation to come, and place the political power-the power to control our lives, liberty, and property-in the hands of the carpet-baggers and the worst classes of our own people. I presume there are few intelligent and upright men in the State who will favor this proposition, and I, therefore, pass it by without further commentary. Let us now consider the second. Suppose we vote the whole Constitution down, what follows? Some contend that matters would stand as they are. Assuming such to be the fact, I ask is that not bad enough? We would have Wells for our nominal Governor, and all of our offices filled by aliens and strangers. We would have justice administered under military supervision and by appointees of a military commandant. But what assurance have we that matters would remain as they are? How do we know whether our situation will not be rendered more intolerable than it is now? By voting down the Constitution altogether, we, in effect, recommit the whole political power of the State to a radical Congress. Has the past action of that body been such as to render it desirable that they should again assume unlimited control over our destiny? I must acknowledge I think not. If we virtually decide that we will have nothing to do with shaping our fortunes, we compel Congress to take upon itself that office. The third proposition is, then, the only one that offers any hope of escape from the terrible evils by which we are threatened. If we strike out the restrictive features, and then adopt the residue of the instrument, while we do not gain all we want, we at least place the political power of the State in the hands of the better classes of the people of Virginia. We snatch it from the grasp of the carpet-baggers and their allies, and we withdraw it from the control of a radical Congress. We will entitle ourselves to a restoration to our rights in the Union, and to the withdrawal of military super |