The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-30
MR.. aARLAND's LAWTON OPINION.

The opinion Of Attorney general Garland in
the case OF General Lawton, will not we APP
prehend, receive universal assent. 1t is the
opinion not of lawyer DESTROYS solely Of de-
claring the true extent and effect Of the Con-
stitution, but it is the argument and plea of
an attorney, who seeks to compel the law to
fit the facts of his clients case. The facts are
these Alexander r. Lawton once held lieu
tenancy in the United States army, and as
such took an oath to support the Constitution;
he became an officer of the Confederate States
army during the rebellion; he received par
don from President johnson on the 9th of
February, 1867; on the goth of July, 1868 the
Fourteenth amendment became operative
as part of the Constitution, which
provided that no person such as General Law
tor should hold any office under the United
States government unless his disabilities
should be removed by a two-thirds vote of
Congress. General Lawton was appointed
minister to Russia; his disabilities had never
been removed by Congress, but it is claimed
that the pardon of President johnson operated
to remove him from the effect of the constitu-
tional amendment. This is the question into
which Mr. Garland makes inquiry. 1t is
somewhat remarkable that the opinion was
not made public until after it was known that
General Lawton had declined the Office so as to
save the President from Embarrassment" 1t
is true that President Cleveland writes Gen.
Lawton that Attorney general Garland has
removed entirely from my mind any doubts
as to your eligibility" but if he has cleared
UP Mr.. Clevelands mind, it is evident that
General Lawton is by no means so certain.
Mr.. Garland's opinion is based upon the as
sertion that 'the pardon of President John
son, previously granted" restored to Gen.
Lawton, and to other persons, Fall their rights
as citizens" There will, probably, be no dis
sent from this proposition; but it is an amaz-
ing non sequitur to infer from this that Gen.
Lawton is eligible to hold Office in
the absence of constitutional qualifications.
We talk about the 'tright' of suffrage
and the fright to hold office in an inexact
and indiscriminate way, when, as matter of
fact and of law, no such rights exist. The
franchises of suffrage and of office holding are
privileges, ITO be exercised and enjoyed under
conditions which the political and legislative
1of H. Il klo
right to fix. The ''rights" Of citizens are the
rights ''to life, liberty and the pursuit of hap
piness," etc. These rights the pardon of
President johnson unquestionably restored
to General Lawton, and to "cther persons" to
whom executive pardon was extended;
but it cannot be allowed for one mo-
ment that a presidential pardon lifted
its recipients out of the general
body of the people, and made them a favored
class, giving them privileges which do not
attach to all citizens alike The pardon of
President johnson stood, and stands, as a
complete bar to any infringement upon
General Lawton's life and liberty as penalty
for his crime Of treason, but that is its entire
and only possible legal effect. The power
still inhered in Congress, as the political
authority of the government, to determine
the methods upon which the restored Union
should be reconstructed; certainly Presi
dent Johnson's universal pardon did
not abridge the original authority Of
Congress to determine what qualif-
cations a man should have to hold Office