Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-05-14
IMPORTANTLEGAL DECISION
Opinion or Chief Justice Chase
Of The Operation OF the
Fourteenth Amend
ment.
Persons Repugnant to the
Amendment not Re.
moved by 1t.

4
county, Virginia, and sentenced to b.
hung. Subsequently an order of dis
charge from imprisonm ent was made by
Judge Underwood, acting as Judge o
the United States Circuit Court, upon 0
writ of ha6eas corpus, on the ground
that Judge SheAey, of the State Circuit
COURT, before whom the trial was had
was ineligible under the third section o.
the fourteenth amendment of the cOnsti
tuition of the United States. The case
was appealed to the United States Cir,
cult Court at Richmond, and on the 10th
instant Chief Justice Chase delivered an
| opinion in the case, from which We ex-
tract as follows:
The question to be considered, there
fore, is whether, upon a sound cOnstruc-
ton of the amendment, it must be re-
garded as operating directly, without any
intermediate proceeding whatever, upon
all persons within the category Of prohi-
bition, and as depliVing them at ence and
absolutely of all official authority and
power. We como
then to the question of construction.
What was the intention Of the people of
the United States in adopting the four
teenth amendment? What is the true
scope and purpose Of the prohibition to
hold Office contained in the third section ?
The proposition maintained in behalf
Of the petitioner is that this prohibition,
instantly, on the day Of its PRONUNCIATION,
vacated all Offices heldTby persons within
the category Of prohibition, and made all
official acts performed by them since that
day null and void.
II the construction now contended for
be given to the prohibitive section, the
effect must be to annul all official acts
performed by these officers. No sentence,
no judgment, no decree, no acknowledge
ment ola deed, no record of deel, no
sheriffys or commissioners sale--in Short
no official acts of the least validity.
1t is impossible to measure the evils
which such construction wsnld add to
the calsmites which have already fallen
upon the people Of these States.
The argument from Inconvenience,
great as these, against the construction
contended for, is certainly enc of no
light weight.
But there is another principle which,
in determining the construction Of this
amendment, is entitled to equal cOnsid-
Grafton with that which has Just been
stated and illustrated Ii may be stated
thus: OF two constructions, either OF
which is warranted by the words of an
amendment of public act, that is to be
preferred which best harmOnizes the
amendment with the general tenor and
spirit OF the act amended.
This principle forbids construction of
the amendment not clearly required by
its terms, which will bring it into con-
flict or disaccord with the other provisions
of the constitution.
And here it becomes proper to eX-
anime sOmewhg1 more particularly the
character of the third section OF the
amendment.
The amendment itself was the first Of
the series of measures proposed or adopt
ed by Congress with view to the reOr~
ganzatiOn Of State governments &C
knowledging the constitutional suprem-
acy of the national government, in those
States which had attempted to break up
their constitutional relations with the
Union, and to establish an independent
confederacy.
All citizens who had, during its earlier
stages, engaged in or aided the war
against the United States, which resulted
inevitably from this attempt, had incurred
the penalties of treason under the statute
of 1870.
But, by the act Of July II, 1862,
while the civil war was fragrant, the
death penalty for treason, committed by
engaging in rebellion, was practically
abolished. Afterwards, in December,
1868, full amnesty, on conditions, which
now certainly seem to be moderate, was
offered by President Lincoln in accord
ance with the same act of Congress; and
after organized resistance to the United
States had ceased, amnesty was again
offered, in accordance with the same act,
by President johnson, in May, 1865. In
both these offers of amnesty extensive
exceptions wers made
In June, 1866, little more than year
later, the fourteenth amendment was
proposed, and was ratified in July, 1868.
The only punitive section contained in it
is the third, now under consideration. 1t
is not improbable that one Of the objects
of this section was to provide for the se~
curity of the nation and of individuals by
the exclusion of class Of citizens from
office; but it can hardly be doubted that
its main purpose was to intlict upon the
leading and most influential characters
who had been engaged in the rebellion,
exclusion from office as punishment for
the offense.
1t is true that, in the judgment OF some
eminent jurists, its legal effect was to
remit all other punishment. And such
certainly was its practical effect, fer 1t
led to the general amnesty Of December
%, of the same year, and to the orders
disseminating all prosecutions for crime
and proceedings for cOnfiscation original
ing in the rebellion. And such certainly
was its practical effect. But this very
effect shows distinctly its punitive chars
acter.
Now it IS undoubted that these pro-
visions of the constitution which deny TO
the legislature power 10 deprive any
person of life, liberty or property with
out due process of law, or to pass bill
of attainder, or an &c post fdctO, are in
consistent in their spirit and general Pur-
pose with a provision which, at once,
without trial, deprives whole class Of
persons of Offices held by them, e r cause
however grave. 1t is true that no limit
can be imposed on the people when ex-
ercising their sovereign power in amend
ing their own constitution of govern
ment. Bot it is necessary presump,
ton that the people, in the exercise Of
that power, seek to confirm and improve
rather than to weaken and impair the
general spirit of the constitution.
If there were no other grounds than
these for seeking another Interpretation
of the amendment than that which we
are asked to put upon it, we should feel
ourselves bound to hold them sufficient.
But there is another and sufficient
ground, and it is this that the construc.
ton demanded in behalf of the petitioner
is nugatory except for mischief.
In the language Of one of the counsel,
"the object had in view by us is not to
unseat Hugh w. Shefiey, and no judg-
ment of the court can effect that"
| Now the object of the amendment is