Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-09-02

H7F T9Fs 81 - ~ n W.
held precisely the same doctrine 50 far as
it had not been changed by section 40 of
the Code 2 Tenn, r 423; 8 Cold, 122.
This being the true construction
and legal effect of the amend
ment, &9s utterly obliterated the
prior punishment for all crimes or often
SEES of the persons fhereiR alluded to. It
operated as a full and complete pardon
and acouittal, for which no conviction
could be had, for any act of treason COM
lnitted prior to the ratification of said
amendment, for levying war against the
United States or adhering to her enc
mics. giving them aid and comfort. There
fore. any attempt to punish those who
had never been guilty of any crime, or
who had been fully discharged from all
punishment due their crimes, ard even
from the imputation of crime, would be
not only in violation of the letter and
spirit of the constitution, but, in the laa-
gusge of Mr.. Justice Story, SIT would be
a violation of the great, fundamental
principles of natural justice and common
right, and would be null and void -
Again, it is manifest, il was not in
tended by the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment, to vest Congress with power
to enact laws Furnishing past crimes,
which had been pardoned by the
President and obliterated by the
amendment itself. This amendment
is limitation upon the powers of Con-
gress, in Furnishing this class of persons,
as will hereafter appear, Congress in pas
sing appropriate laws to enforce this
amendment, is limited to inficting such
punishment as viii not deprive the parties
''of life, liberty and property" Congress
may enact any law, which will prevent
parties under disabilities from exercising
the duties and functions of the office;
Congress may pass laws in harmony with
the other clauses of the Constitution to
protect the office, but, not to punish the
officer. e --t--a
8. The next question is /: Does the
Fourteenth Amendment enforce itself,
without Congressional legislation, or must
Congress enforce it by appropriate legis-
lation, before it would be operative and
effective2 This question has been con-
clusively settled by the Supreme Court of
the United States, who held that consti-
tutional provision is merely directory TO
the Legislature, and is not operative, as
law of prohibition l1roprio Oigore, until so
enforced, Grove VS. Slaughter, Is. Pet.
446. In the case of Griffin, Chief JUS
tice Chase held, that "persons in Office by
lawful appointment or election, before
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amend
ment, were not by the direct and imme
date effect of this disqualifying prohibit
ton to hold Office, rendered disqualified
by the third section, but that legislation
of Congress was necessary to give effect
to the prohibition by providing for such
removal" He further said, 'the subject
received the consideration of the. judges
of the Supreme Court, at the last term,
and he was authorized to say that they
were unanimously agreed in the opinion
that person convicted by a jury and
sentenced by court, laboring under such
disabilities, could not be released upon
habeas corpus" Am. L. Rec, 7S4.
The amendment, upon its face, shows that
it was not the intention of the trainers of
it that it should execute itself, it provides no
mode of ascertsining whether the incum-
bent is qualifedor not, it snnexes no mode
of filing the Office, if vacant, nor any
punishment for its infraction, but it ex
pressly provides that its enforcement
shall be provided for by appropriate con-
gressional legislation, and until this is
done, the amendment was imperative.
4. The next question is, what were the
IN, hxrf hn
and provisions of this amendment We
have already shown that the true con-
struction and legal consequences of the
adoption of this amendment was the Oblit-
Grafton from the laws, of all pains and
punishments annexed to the crime of
treason, by levying war against the United
States, and of adhering TO her enemies,
giving them aid and comfort, prior to
that time, as fully and effectually as were
those who had been previously pardo ned
by the President, and restored to their
original status. The legal effect of said
amendment, at common law, as we have
already shown, was an utter obliteradon
of their crimes from the statute books.
True, said amendment empowers Congress
to enforce these disabilities by appropr-
ate legislation, yet this legislation must
be consistent and harmonic with the
other terms and provisions of the COnsti-
tuition, as well as with the amendment it
self: therefore, any act of Congress which
attempts to punish these parties for levy
ing war against the United States and adj
herring to her enemies, giving them aid
and comfort, would be in direct violation
of the Presidents power to pardon, and
of the amendment itself, which declares
in legal effect, what the Presidents par
don did, that these crimes or offenses were
obliterated, while this act of Congress says
they have not been pardoned, and seeks
to infiict new and distinct punishment
for these PRIOR pardoned crimes. The
Constitution vests the President with the
pardoning power, and the law declares
the pardoned individual to be new
man, and the people, i'll their sovereign
capacity, by this amendment, have oblit-
Grated the crimes of those who have
not been pardoned, and declared they
shall not be punished for their past
crimes; yet this act of Congress declares
they shall be punished in their persons
and property: both cannot have
effect, and the act of Congress must
be held unconstitutional andvoid, because
it is repugnant to the pardOning power
vested in the President and in conflict
with the true construction andlegal effect
of the fourteenth amendment itself.
5. We have already admitted that the
fourteenth amendment constituted an in
tegral part of the Constitution, and it is a
cardinal rule of construction with written
constitutions, that their various clauses
must be construed as whole; effect is to
be given, if possible, to the whole con-
stitution, and to every section and clause.
If different sections and clauses seem to
conflict, the courts must harmonic them,
| if possible, and lean in favor of that con-
struction which will render every word
operative, rather than a construction
which will make some words idle or nu.
gatory. or make one section or clause con.
| fiict with other sections or clauses. Il
is scarcely conceivable that case can
arise where the courts would be jastifiable
in declaring any section or clause of writ,
ten constitution nugatory or in contiic'
with Others for one part is not allowed to
defeat another, if by any reasonable con.
struction the two can be made to stand
together. Cool. Lin. p. IS. This being