Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1885-04-17
The Lawton Case.

Acknowledgement Garland has prepared
an opinion on the question of General
Lawton's eligibility to the office of minis
ter to Russia. His conclusion is that
General Lawton is not disqualified by the
constitution, and that President Cleveland
was warranted in making the appoint
ment. The case will probably be referred
for final decision to the United States Su-
preme Court, although General Lawton
appears to be quite satisfied with the YER
dict of the Attorney-General, and has sig
nfied his willingness to accept the ap-
pointment.
The question, however, like several
other constitutional points, which have
recently been brought up, is rather nice
one. When President Cleveland sub
mitted the appointment to the committee
on foreign affairs the committee simply
reported back the nomination, having pre-
vlously informed the Secretary of State
that, in its opinion, General Lawton was
not eligible. The nomination was there
fore withdrawn by President Cleveland
The grounds upon which General Law
toms Disqualification were based, are as
follows : General Lawton took part
against the Union in the rebellion. In
1867 President Johnson pardoned him for
his participation in the war. Subsequent
ly to his executive pardon, the Fourteenth
Amendment to the constitution was pass
ed. The amendment reads
"No person shall be a Senator or Rep
resentative in Congress, or elector of
President or Vice-Presdent, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United
States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath as member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United
states, or as a member of any State legis-
lature, or as an executive or judicial Of
licer of any State, to support the constitu-
ton 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
vote of two-thirds of each House. re-
move such disability"
The question is, whether the pardon
granted to General Lawton by President
johnson previous to the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, relieves him from
the disabilities imposed by the amend
ment, or not.
The Supreme Court has considered sew
eral instances of similar nature. One
of them was the case of Attorney General
Garland himself. From 1861 to the fall
of the Confederacy, Mr. Garland was a
member of the Confederate Congress- In
July, 1868, he received full pardon from
President johnson. Previously to 1861 he
had been admitted to practice in the Uni
ted states Supreme Court. BY an act of
Congress passed before his pardon he was
barred from appearing as counsellor in
the supreme Court. The case was taken
to the Supreme Court and the Court held
that the pardon was paramount to the
act of Congress, and relieved the petit
toner from all penalties and liabilities.
''The pardonng power vested in the Presi-
dent" said the Court, sis unlimited.
cases of impeachment alone being except
ed. 1t extends to every offence known to
the law. 1t is not subject to legislative
control. Congress can nither limit the
effect of the pardon nor exclude from it's
exercise any class of offenders full
pardon RENTS the punishment and blots
out of existence the guilt. 1t removes tn e
penalties and disabilities and restores the
offender to all his civil rights 1t makes
him, as 1t were, new man and gives him
new credit and capacity"
This opinion of the Supreme Court has
been sustained in every case where the
effect of pardon by the executive, pre-
vious to the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment, has been the question at
issue. The point now in doubt is, wheth-
er the amendment can be taken to have a
retroactive significance. Can political
disabilities, which have been removed
by executive pardon, be reimposed
by constitutional amendment This
is the question which is puzzling
the legal talent of the country, and
which will probably be referred to the
Supreme Court before it is finally settled.
Attorney General Garland has taken the
view which would be expected of him
under the circumstances There are not
wanting, able constitutional lawyers who
look at the question from an entirely diff
ferent standpoint The establishment of
precedent in this case will prevent any
such MISUNDERSTANDING for the future, and
will doubtless relieve the Executive of
some embarrassment in regard to future
appointments.
1t is announced that Gen. Henry r.
Jackson the newly appointed minister to
Mexico is under precisely the same disa-
abilities as Gen. Lawton. Gen. Jackson
states that he does not wish to complicate
matters, although he has been confirmed,
and will not assume the duties until his
disabilities have been passed upon.
Queen Victoria Enquiries After Gen.
Grant.
The following correspondence took place
by cable one day last week;
ANKLES BAINs, Sth April, 1885
Mrs. Gen. Grant, NeW York:
The Queen, who feels deeply for you in
your anxieties, commands me to inquire
after Gen. Grant.
DowAGER MARCHIoNEss OF ELY.
The reply was:
New YORK, April 0, 1885.
Warehouses of Ely, Air-les- Bdins:
Mrs. Grant thanks the Queen for her
sympathy, and directs me to say Gen.
Grant is no better Col. GRANT.
Sheridan and the Planter.
During the forenoon of April Z, 1865, in
his quest of Lees troops Gen. Sheridan