Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1872-04-05
The Disabilities Question.

Our argument that the fourteenth
amendment disqualifies from office on
~ those excepted from the Executive
pardon of July 4, 1868, has been so va
riously canvassed in the press as to
render proper its re-statement. 1t is
this: The second section of the four
tenth amendment speaks of "partici-
patton in rebellion or other crime"
showing that in the contemplation of
the amendment "crime" and par
ticipation in rebellion are converti-
bic terms. Section three of the amend
ment reads: eai
No person shall be a Senator or Represen-
tative in Congress, or eiector of President or
Vice-President, or hold any Office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under
any State, who having previously taken an
oath as a member of Congress, OF as an Off
GER of the United States, or as member of
any State legislature, as an executive or in
dicial officer Of any State, to support the Con-
stitution Of the United States, shall have en-
gagged in instruction or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof; but Congress may, by a vote of two
thirds of each House, remove such disability.
That the word disability" in this
section is equivalent to punishment"
sufficiently appears from article l, sec
ton 3, paragraph Z, of the Constitu
ton, which says Judgment in cas-.
es of impeachment shall not extend
=" further than to removal from office
&c and disqualification to hold or enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit
under the United States" The pun
ishment, in other words, on conviction
upon impeachment is disability to
hold office. . Participation in rebel
lion," then, being crime," and dis
bility" or " disqualification for office
being punishment" it follows that
the third section of the fourteenth
amendment imposes punishment for
crime. The DIST of July, 1868, being
the time when the fourteenth amend
ment became of force. that is the date
of the infiiotion of the punishment.
On whom was it inflicted? Evident
~ only on those at that time guilty of
the crime. But who was then guilty?
Certainly no man was whose crime
had been pardoned by the Executive
proclamation of July 4, 1868. The Su-
preme Court of the United States
unanimously decided on the Goth of
January, 1872, that pardon includes
amnesty; it "blotS out the offence
pardoned and removes all its penal
"consequences.n The proclamation Of
July t, 1868, blotted out, therefore, the
crime of every man pardoned by it.
But every man who participated i'll
the rebellion, save the two or three
then under indictment therefor, was
pardcned by the proclamation. In
the time-hOnored language of the law
he became "a new man, Being q
new man the punishments of the |
fourteenth amendment touch him not. |
The grounds on which those punish |
ments base themselves are lacking in |
his case. Only those guilty of partici- |
patton in rebellion are amenabie to the |
disabilities of the fourteenth amend |
ment, and he is not guilty whose guilt |
was blotted out before the disabilities |
became law.
Congress individually will hold that |
he is guilty, but it is fortunately the |
case that Congress can only act upon |
such view as respects itself. Either |
House is made sole judge of the quail
fications of its members, and. despite |
his clear, rightful title, may refuse to |
admit q Senator or Representative |
elect on the ground that he is qualified |
under the fourteenth amendment. No |
judicial process can reach such wrong |
but in every other case where a man |
is denied the office to which he has |
been chosen there is a remedy in the |
courts. Let him hold and exercise his |
effice, and when indicted therefor I'M
der section Is of the act of May 81, |
1870, plead that as he was not guilty |
of any participation in rebellion when |
the fourteenth amendment became of |
force its penalties on those who were |
guilty touch him not.-N. Y. World.