A riot occurred in Mobile, May 14, on the occasion of a speech made by Judge Kelley, of Pennsylvania, who had been speaking in the South in favor of reorganizing under Congressional law. Four persons were killed and twenty wounded. A citizens’ meeting was held, composed of all parties, which denounced the outrage. The Mayor and Chief of Police were censured, on an investigation into the affair, and, on the 22d of May, were removed, and others appointed in their stead.
A negro riot took place in Richmond, May 9, on the occasion of an engine trial, when a thousand negroes were dispersed at the point of the bayonet.
No events worthy of special notice occurred in the First and Fourth Districts, except the registration proceedings.
Registration, and the Powers of Military Commanders.—The military commanders had scarcely begun the work of registration before questions involving the construction of the law were originated. Different commanders construed the act differently, and of course conflicting instructions were given. Some were very stringent, and others more moderate. The one most widely variant from those generally issued, was issued by General Ord, June 10. The views of Secretary Stanbery and General Grant, respectively, are set forth in the following note, signed by General Grant, June 23:—
“I entirely dissent from the views contained in Paragraph IV. Your view as to the duty of registrars to register every man who will take the required oath, though they know the applicant perjures himself, is sustained by the views of the Attorney-General. My opinion is, that it is the duty of the Board of Registration to see, so far as it lies in their power, that no unauthorized person is allowed to register. To secure this end, registrars should be allowed to administer oaths and examine witnesses. The law, however, makes district commanders their own interpreters of their power and duty under it: and, in my opinion, the Attorney-General or myself can no more than give our opinion as to the meaning of the law; neither can enforce their views against the judgment of those made responsible for the faithful execution of the law,—the district commanders.”
The Attorney-General had addressed an opinion to the President, May 24, giving his interpretation of the law, so far as relates to registration, at length. Under it there were comparatively few who were not entitled to register. This opinion was forwarded to the various commanders by the President, with a note, directing attention to it. General Pope, June 27, telegraphed General Grant to learn whether the note of the President was mandatory or not, and received the following response:—
“Enforce your own construction of the Military Bill until ordered to do otherwise. The opinion of the Attorney-General has not been distributed to district commanders in language or manner entitling it to the force of an order, nor can I suppose that the President intended it to have such force.
“U. S. GRANT, General.”
A similar despatch was sent to General Sheridan the same day, in answer to a telegram. The latter officer, June 22, wrote to General Grant, that the opinion of the Attorney-General opened a “broad, macadamized road to perjury,” and that its effects were beginning to show themselves in organized opposition to all the acts of the military commanders. “Every civil officer in the State will administer justice according to his own views: many of them, denouncing the Military Bill as unconstitutional, will throw every impediment in the way of its execution.”
The Attorney-General gave a lengthy opinion, June 12, to the effect that military commanders did not possess the power to remove State officers; that they could not take cognizance of past offenses; and generally confining their powers within limits more contracted than it had been supposed was the scope of the law.