The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1872-03-27
came part of the Constitution of the

tain classes of citizens of the United
States became ipeligible to State O
Federal Office by reason of their partic
, ipation in rebellion, though previously
eligible despite such participation. II
, other words legal and political disibili
ties not Heretofore existing were ther
Imposed" That the imposition O.
these disabilities is punishment can.
not be doubted. Punishment anG
crime go together, and this very four.
teenth amendment speaks in section z
OF participation in rebellion or othe,
crime" The disabilities imposed by
the third section of the fourteenth
amendment are therefore punishment
for crime-the crime of participation
in rebellion.
i We now come to the recent decision
of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of the United States
VS.. Klein, administrator of Wilson,
Wilson had cotton which was sold as
captured or abandoned property and
the proceeds paid into the Treasury.
Klein, as administrator, sued for the
money in the Court of Claims, which
gave judgment in his 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-
prlations act of March IL, 1870, Klein
had no rights. This pr0viso was in
effect that a Presidential pardon, when
pleaded in either the Court of Claims
or 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
Supreme Court put it, tile pardon
should "be conclusive evidence of the
acts pardoned, bnt null and void as ev-
idence of the rights conferred BY it's
The object of the proviso was to evade
the fplfillment of the promise made in
the earlier amnesty proclamation of
Lincoln and johnson of full pardon
with restoration of all rights Of proper
ty, save as to slaves, on the taking and
keeping of a certain oath. On plead
ing his pardon the sutton was to be
told that he had thereby admitted par
ticipation in the rebellion, and on this
the courts were to dismiss the case as
being one brought by disloyal per-
son. 1t will be seen, therefore, that
the Drake proyiso repudiated the Ex-
ecutive promise of restoration of rights
OF property, and the Supreme Court
held that it was not within the power
Of Congress to thus nullify the Execu-
tive pardon. In support of this view
the court laid stress on the nature and
extent of the pardoning power. 1t
said, through Chief Justice Chase, who
delivered the opinion, the court being
unanimous: 'It is the intention of the
Constitution that each of the great CO.
ordinate departments of the govern
ment, the Legislative, the executive,
and the judicial, shall be, in its sphere.
independent of the others. To the Ex-
ecutive alone is intrusted the power of
pardon; and it is granted without
limit. Pardon includes amnesty
1t blots out the offence pardoned,
and rem owes all it's penal conse-
quences."
The Executive pardon blotting out
the offence pardoned and removing all
its penal consequences, it follows that
the amnesty proclamation of July A,
1868, blotted out the participation in
the rebellion of all persons save those
under actual presentment or indict-
ment therefor, and removed all the
penal consequences of such participa
ton. That proclamation reads:
Be it known that I, Andrew johnson.
President of the Uuited States, do, by yir.
tue of tho Constitution and in the name of
the people of the United States, hereby
proclaim and declare, Internationally and
without reservation. to all and every perl
son who directly or indirectly participa-
ted In the late insurrection or rebellion,
excepting such person or persons as NAV
be under presentment or Indictment in
any court of the United States having
jurisdiction npon a charge Of
treason or other felony, a full paTdon
and amnesty for the offence of treason
against the United States, or of adberipp
TO their enemies during the late civil war,
with restoration of all rights of property. ,
except as to slaves, and except also as to
any property of which any person NAV
have been legally Invested under the laws
If the United States
Beyond Mr.. Jefferson Davis and 9
some obscure person indicated in East
Tennessee, it is not known that any ,
me was, at the date of this proclama- ,
ion, under indictment or presentment 9
n the Federal courts for participation /
n rebellion, and the full pardon and q
amnesty bestowed by the proclamation =
'xtend therefore, with these excep- !
ions, to every participant in the re- :
'ellion. On the 4th Of July, 1868, then, q
t may be said that every person who :
anticipated. direetlyo or indirectly, in .
lie rebellion had that participation !,
'lOtted out and all its penal conse- :
uences removed. In contemplation Z
+ law he lay down to his rest on the O