Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-03-15

teenth amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. These indictments and
the arrest Of The accused, caused a good
deal of excitement at the time, for they
were extended to persons holding the most
petty Office. Circulars were cent out 10
certain parties-"loyal," of course-by the
United States District Attorney, by direc-
ton Of the authorities at Washington, in
voking spiesuand informers to report every
man who held an Office in violation of that
section. We believe United States Judge
in Kentucky imposed fine upon the clerk
ofthe court in one of the counties in that
State and deprived him of his Office, on the
ground that he had violated this third sec
ton, which reads as follows:
"No person shall be Senator or Repre-
i sentative in Congress, or elector of Presi-
dent 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, or
as an officer of the United States, or as s
member of any State Legislature, or as an
executive or judicisl officer Of any. State, to
support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in instruction
or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof: but
Congress may, by vote Of two-thirds Of
of each House, remove such disability"
If we mistake not a number of par
ties in this State indicted under this
section, compromised their cases by resign
ing the offices they held and paying the ac-
crued COSTS 1t availed nothing then to
plead the Presidents proclamation of am
nesty, of July 4, 1858, because there had
been no decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States as to the pardoning power
of that proclamation. But there has re-
Gently been decision by that
tribunal which settles the question
effectually as to the force of that proclama-
ton. 1t was effectual as to all who were
not then under presentment or indictment,
and that the fourteenth amendment can
legally apply only to those who were not
thus pardoned. In this connection 1t is i'm
portant to note the construction which
Congress itself puts upon the fourteenth
amendment. The New York World di-
reefs attention to the title of the act APP
proved March 8, 1871, which is, ian act
to relieve certain persons therein named
from the legal and political disabilities i'm
posed by the fourteenth amendment Of
the Constitution of theUnited States" 1t
thus appears that Congress holds that prior
to the ratification of the fourteenth amend
ment all citizens were eligible to Office, as
they were in fact; and that the disabili-
ties which it is claimed prohibited certain
citizens of the South from holding Office
now, were 'imposed" by that amendment,
as the act of March 8, 1871, and every
other relief act passed by Congress ex-
pressly set forth. 1t is therefore of some
importance to ascertain when in the esti-
nation of Congress these disabilities COM
menced to operate. Congress by concur
rent resolution, declared that the fourteenth |
amendment became part of the Constitu
ton on the 2lst of July, 1858, seventeen |
days after the President had psrdoned every |
one held guilty Of participation in ''the re-
belliOn," except a few then under indict-
meut. According to the Secretary Of State,
the date of the commencement of these |
disabilities was the 2Sth of July, 1868,
when be proclaimed in the usual form the
amendment ratified. The New York |
World accepts the date fixed by Congress,
and argues as follows:
"The position of Congress will then be |
that on the 2lst of July, 1868, certain |
classes Of citizens of the United States be-
came ineligible TO State or Federal Office by
reason of their participation in rebellion,
though previously eligible despite such par
ticipation. In other words legal and po-
litical disabilities not Heretofore existing
were then imposed Tha. the imposition
of these disabilities is punishment cannot
be doubted Punishment and crime go to-
gether, and this very fourteenth amend
ment speaks in section 2 Of participation
in rebellion or other crime The disabili-
ties imposed by the third section Of the
fourteenth amendment are therefore pun
ishment for crilne-the crime of participa-
ton in rebellion.
1--WE now come to the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of the United States vs. Klein, admin
istTator Of Wilson, delivered Jan. 20 1872.
Wilson had cotton which was sold as cap
tured or abandoned property and the pro-
ceeds paid into the Treasury. Klein, as adj
ministrator, sued for the money in the
Court Of Claims, which gave Judgment in
bis favor. Counsel for the United States
appealed to the Supreme Court, and argued
that under the terms of what is known as
the Drake prOviso in the General Appro-
priatiODs act of March u, 1870, Klein had
no rights. This prOviso was il effect that
a Presidential pardon, when pleaded in
either the Court Of Claims of the
Supreme Court, should prove only
that the person pleading had
been engaged in rebellion, but not that he
had been pardOned therefor. As the Su-
preme Court put it, the pardon should 'be
conclusive evidence of the acts pardoned,
but null and void as evidence Of the rights
conferred by it, The object of the proviso
was to evade the fulflment of the promise
nade in the earlier amnesty prOclamatiOns
of Lincoln and johnson Of a full pardon
with restoration of all rights Of property,
save as to slaves, on the taking and keeDing
of certain oath. On pleading his pardon
the sutton was to be. told that he had there
by admitted participation in the rebellion,
and on this the courts were to dismiss the
case as being one brought by disloyal
person. 1t will be seen, therefore, that
the Drake provisO repudiated the Execu-
tive promise of restoration of rights of
and the Supreme Court held that
It was not within the power of Congress to
thus nullify the Executive pardon. In sup
port of this view the court laid stress on
the nature and extent of the pardOning
power. It said, through Chief Justice
Chase, who delivered the opinion, the court
being unanimous: st is tie intention Of
the Constitution that each Of the great CO.
ordinate departments ofthe government, the
legislative, the executive, and the judicial,
shall be, in its sphere, independent Of the
others. To thu Executive alone is intrust-
ed the power Of pardon; and it is granted
without limit. Pardon includes amnesty.
1t blots out the offence pardoned, and re-
moves all its persl consequences
"The Executive pardon blotting out the
offence pardOned AMI removing all its penal
Il & 2l,o4 10 ,a-fyr