New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-04-30
Mr. GARLAND AND THE FOURTEENTH
dNENDMENT

We DO not JDlnk uidI NIL IL" "A'
opinion as to the eligibility of General Lawton
to hold a civil Office under the Government, has
hurt the Fourteenth Amendment, but nc has
seriously damaged his own reputation as
| LAWYER and has led the President to whom ne
! is legal adviser, into an unwise position ior
which there existed no necessity and no tempta-
ton. Let us examine the facts.
In 1866 President Johnson used the par
doning power so freely that nine out OF every
ten-ndeed almost ninety-nne out ot every
hundred of those who took part in the Re-
bellion had, by the close OF the year, received
Executive clemency. Mr.. Garland himself was
ono of the number Congress saw plainly that
if no preventive power were exercised the lnsur-
rectiOnary States, as soon rs readmlttcd' wouId
be represented in the Senate and House by
leading rebels morally stained as they were by
the guilt of treason. Congress itself was un-
able to interpose any obstacle to the accomplish
ment of this end. There was, indeed, but one
power competent to interpose. The people
could amend tho Constitution and effectually
control the issue. Two thirds OF each branch
of Congress and the Legislatures of three
fourths of all the States did, therefore, adopt
the Fourteenth Amendment, the third section oil
which reads as follows:
No person shall be Senator Representative In Con-
gres elector OF President and Vice President or hou
any office. civil military. under the United States or
under any State who. having previously taken an oath
IA "a member OF Congress- or as an officer OF the Oncd
States or executive or Judicial officer OF any STATE
10 support the Constitution OF the United States shall
have engaged IN resurrection rebellion against the
same given aid comfort to the enemies thereof but
Congress may by vote of two-thrds OF each House.
remove such disability.
~. a ,o,,ftr pnf
to Interfere with the pardon of the President,
which relieved those guilty OF treason from
criminal Indictment and punishment. The
plain, simple design of the amendment was to
prevent the men described from being eligible
to Office until twO-thirds of Congress should
confer the right, and the constitutional pro-
vision which declared this was coextensive III
power with that which gave the President the
right to pardon.
Mr.. Garlanu's objection is that this action
took away something from these men which
could not lawfully be done after they had re-
ceived the Presidents pardon. All through his
argument the Attorney General fails to dis
crimnate between the power OF an act OF Con-
gress and the power of a constitutional amend
ment Congress, Of course, could not deprive
| these pardoned men of political rights, but the
people, by amending their Constitution, were
| surely competent to do it. AS If he had
| clinching argument, Mr. Garland declares that
if his conclusion is not correct, then the people
might again amend the Constitution, requIr-
= ing an unanimous instead of two-thirds vote
u of both Houses to remove the disability"
| Certainly they might, Mr.. Garland. unless you
can logically deny the right of the people to
| amend their Constitution in Whatever respect
they may choose. Let us take an Illustration
which answers Mr. Garlan3's argument.
A native born citizen of the United States or
one naturalized for nine years is to-day eligible
| to the Senate at thirty years of age. Mr.. Gar
| land surely does not doubt that by constitu-
tional amendment forty years may be required
| as the eligible age. And when the man of thirty
reaches forty Mr.. Garland does not doubt that
another amendment might postpone his elgibil-
ity ten years longer, by requiring him to be fifty
years of age, and after that still further by
| one recurring him to be sixty years, thus
practically hepriving an entire generation OF
the enjoyment of Senatorial honors. Would
not this be taking away privilege enjoyed by
certain citizens to-day, just as effectively as it
might be done in the case Of requiring by an
other amendment a unanimous vote of Congress
/ to relieve the disabilities of rebel? Mr.. Gar
| land will add to the legal learning of this couu-
try if he will define any limitations upon the
power of the people to amend their Constitu-
ton, save in the one particular in which they
| agreed in the instrument itself-that the power
of amendment should not apply to the equal
representation of States in the Senate. Presl-
dent Johnson was holly opposed to the Four
| teenth Amendment and at the time of its adop-
ton was on the worst possible terms with the
Republican party. If he had conceived the
| doctrine now advanced by Mr.. Garland, that
| his pardon OVERRIDE the amendment. he would,
perhaps, before its formal PRONUNCIATION have
pardoned every rebel in the land; but at that
time no such doctrine was dreamed of by any
one. Reverdy Johnson, Thomas A. Hendricks,
James Guthrie, Edgar Cowan and Doolttle, OF
| Wisconsin, were all in the Senate, all able
lawyers, and all voted against the amendment,
| but not one Of them suggested doubt of its
full force and effect.
After the amendment has been in operation
| for nearly twenty years, fully recognized by all
| the departments of the Government, Mr.. Tar
| land rises to set aside the construction and
practice sanctiied by that long period. In the
interval between 1867 and 1885 thousands of
men have had their disabilities removed by
Congress, but never until this time has Presi-
| dent Johnsou's pardon been offered as sufficient
| to set aside the Fourteenth Amendment. 1t is