Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-03-03

is recognised by the Court of Claims as
applying to all parties, and we do not see
how the Judge Of the Federal Courts in the
Southern States can do less. That princi-
pie will certainly apply to all parties who
obtained the benefits Of President John
sons proclamation of amnesty and pardon,
issued July 4, 1868. The fourteenth amend
ment was not proclaimed ratified eas part
Of the Constitution" until the 10th of July,
1865, and therefore it did not take legal
effect until sixteen days after the is
suance of the Presidents proclama-
ton. Thus, in the interim, under
and by virtue of the Constitu-
ton as it then 1cGS-that being then the
supreme law of the landau persons who
either "directly or indirectly participated in
the Instruction or rebellion" except such
as might be under indictment for felony or
treason in court of competent jurisdiction,
were pardoned Internationally and with
out reservation" 1t will be remembered
that Senator Carpenter, Of Wisconsin, re-
garded as an able constitutional LAWYER,
took precisely this view of the power and
extent Of the Presidents pardon in the case
of Senator Miller, of Georgia; and the
Senate recognised the force OF
this. view by admitting Miller.
When tie decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case of Klein
was announced, The New York World pre-
sented an argument as to the effect of that
decision which appears to US unanswerable,
and We submit it in this connection for le-
gal criticism. That paper says:
"The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, as delivered on the 29th
Of January, in the case of the United States
vs.. Klein, administrator of Wilson, raises q
most interesting point. July +, 1868, Pres
ideut Johnson issued, Internationally and
without reservation, to all and to every
person who directly or indirectly participa-
ted in the late instruction or rebellion, ex-
cepting such persons as may be under pre-
sentiment or Indictment in any court of the
United States having competent iurisdic-
ton upon a charge Of treason or other felo-
ny,a full pardon and amnesty etc The DOW
er ofthe President to issue this pardon and
its entire validity have just been affirmed by
the Supreme Court. Now on the 18th day
Of July, 1868, Secretary Seward, under
authority Of a concurrent resolution of the
DIST Of July, 1868, certified that the four
teGnth amendment vas part of the Consli-
tuition Of the United States. By the third
section Of that amendment certain classes
Of persons are debaTed from holding Office,
as punishment for acts condoned by the
above pardon. The question, therefore.
arises whether a man pardoDed under au-
thOrity Of one part Of the constitution can
by another and subsequent portion be dis
pardOned and put in need Of amnesty anew.
The answer may be prompt that any
amendment whatsoever can be lawfully
made 20 the constitution, and this is quite
true; but it is equally true that the amend
ment, when made, has no peculiar and SUI
pcFeXceiling force. 1t is simply valid TO all
intentS and purposes as part Of this consti-
tuition II has the same validity as other
parts, and no more. 1t does not stand in
majestic isolation, nominating the rest ofthe
but is, in conjunction with the
rest, to be so construed as that, if possible.
the whole may stand. Under the consti-
tuition as it stood prior to the adoption of
the fourteenth amendment, those at
whom that amendment strikes were purg
ed OF the offence fer which the amendment
strikes them. When, therefore, the amend
ment delivers its blow, the ground of the
blow being absent the stroke falls futile.
"Of course, as regards the two houses of
fho 1iNftv- Df H.
pardon as affirmed by the Supreme court
cannot avail any Senator or Representative
elect who may be under the ban of the
another part of the Constitu-
ton coming in to withdraw the effect of
pardon thus far from judicial scrutiny by
declaring either house sole judge of the
qualification of its own members. But as
30 all other cases the ruling of the court in
The case under review must undoubtedly
hold. John Doe, for instance, who as a
say, Of the Florida
Legislature in 1850, took an oath to
support the Constitution of the
United States, and in 1861 went with his
State is elected Governor of Florida. 1t
is objected to him that he cannot hold that
office as being amenable to the disabilities |
imposed by the third section of the four !
zenith amendment and not having been re-
iaved therefrom. Despite this objection.
be accepts and holds that Office, andIlnder |
he fifteenth section of the enforcement
Act Of May 81, 1870, is indicted for accent |
ing and holding an Office TO which he is in |
eligible under the third section Of the four |
tenth amendment.
Here is legal question with which Con- |
5ress has no concern. The Hon. John |
pleads his full pardon and amnesty under
Executive proclamation of July 1, 1868. |
and shows himself constitutiOnallv purged |
Of oiianse before the Constitution was so |
amended as TO impose punishment ON the
oilense. Counsel for the Government con-
tended that the fourteenth amendment
dominates the entire instrument on which
It is superimposed, even TO the extent
Of diSpardoning the Hon. John and
making him ameDable to the act of MAY ~.
1870. Hon. John replies that an amend |
ment to the Constitution is, in the word. /
Of that instrument, only valid to all intents
and purposes as part Of this Constitution |
All parts, he contends, are to be construed |
together, so that, if possible, the whole NAV |
stand. Prior to the adoption of the four
leenth amendment there was but one way
Of pardon for offences against the United |
States Z. e., by Executive clemency, and in
his way he was purged of his offence
With the adoption of the fourteenth amer n
ment another way of pardon was added
p, by two. thirds Congressional vote bnt