The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-05-06
Lawton's Disabilities Opinion Of
the Attorney General

the Attorney General.
After the question had been brought up
IN the Senate on the last day Of the special
session as to the eligibility Of 4. r.
of Georgia, to the position Of
to Russia, to which position he
had been nominated, President Cleye-
land submitted the matter to the
Attorney General for an opinion. That
opinion is now made public, under date
Of April n It's essential features are as
follows:
STR-My opinion is requested on the
following case: Alexander r. Lawton,
who had been cadet at West Point
and held a commission as Lieutenant in
the United States army, and IN one or
both of these characters had taken an
oath which it is contended and | am to
assume as part of the case submitted,
bound him TO support the Constitution,
afterward bore arms against the United
States in the war of the rebellion. On
the 9th Of February, 1867, he received q
full pardon and amnesty for the part he
had taken in the rebellion, and the
question is whether he can hold a civil
Office under the United States nothwith-
standing the third section of the four
teenth amendment of the Constitution,
which took effect ON the Doth Of July,
1868, and is in the following words;
SEC. 3. No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress or elector OF
President and Vice President or hold any
office, civil or military under any State,
having previously taken an oath as a
member OF Congress, or as any officer in the
United States, or as a member OF any State
Legislature. or as an executive or judicial
officer Of any State, to support the Consti-
tuition Of the United States, shall have en-
gagged in iusurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a
vote OF two thirds of each house, remove
such disability.
The question presented will be dis
posed Of upon the legal intent and
meaning of the amendment. Prior to
the adoption of the amendment the
Executive, in an exercise of an unques-
tionable power, had granted pardons to
The person whose case is now unuer
same predicament of guilt The power
to pardon vested in the Executive by
the Constitution was not given to be
exercised capriciously, but when
resorted to ip the cases like the present
it should be in futherance of the peace
of society and in the interests of the
Government. Such being the theory,
it must be presumed that every exertion
of that power in such case by the
Executive department of the Govern
ment was in futherance of the object
for which the power was granted, for
nothing IS better established than that
want of fidelity to its constitutional
duties is never to be imputed to any one
! Of the great co ordinate departments OF
the Government if it be possible tc
avoid it. At the time the fourteenth
amendment went into operation, Mr.
Lawton and the other persons referred
to had been restored by the pardons
/ previously granted to all their rights as
| citizens and had become by virtue oil
| their pardons, as innocent as if they hac
| never committed the offences forgiven
/ The question then, for my opinion is
whether it was the intention of the
/ fourteenth amendment to take away
rights which previous pardons hac
! restored, or, in other words, whether
/ it was the purpose of that amendment
/ to cast reproach upon the Executive
| Department of the Government by re
repudiatiug as unworthy of credit it
acts of unquestioned validity, by de
stroying rights which had undoubtedly
1 vested under those acts, and by viola
! 1. Ia solA 1oJ. 90 i
| 1t cannot be denied that the amendmen
is as comprehensive as language coulC
make it; but at the same time. it mus
! be remembered that the words Of every
law are to be taken in subordination t.
its intent, aud that where they ar,
| general their sense will be restricted, i
necessary, to prevent an unjust or alb
surd consequence, which it must b,
presumed the Legislature could not hav,
contemplated.
1t was upon this principle that the Su
pIeme Court of the United States helt
that an individual pardoned for taking
part in the rebellion was not debarreC
| from sueing in the Court of Claims by
| law providing that, in order to recove
the proceeds of captured or abandone,
] v.
| he has never given any aid or comfort t,
the present rebel. The ruling of tn
Court is quoted, and the opinion pro
| ceeds: That this principle is as applica
| BILE to the Interpretation of constitution
as to statutes was coDelusively establish
ed by the Supreme Court in the slaugh
ter-house cause Us Wall, ~, where tn
Court refused TO adopt the full meanin,
| of certain general words in the first sec
ton of the fourteenth amendment il
order to avoid an Interpretation tina
would have involved so great a depar
ture from the structure and spirit of gu
| institutions as, in the absence of explicit
language, could not be presumed l.
have been intended.
DISABILITIES REMOVED.
/ Applying, then, this sound rule of in
depreciation to the third section of tn
fourteenth amendment, am of opinion
that the consequence of allowing ii
general words of exclusion to operat
without limitation In favor of person
in the situation of Mr.. Lawton would b
productive of an injustice and disregar,
of the public faith which nothing shor
of the most explicit and controlling Ian
guage should authorize. IL the conclu
sion | have reached is not well-founded
then it follows that, if the people of tn
United States should amend the thir,
section of the fourteenth amendment il
the single particular of requiring
} unanimous instead of two-thirds vot
of both houses to remove the disabilit,
imposed, all persons whose disabilitie
had been, therefore, removed by two