Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-29
TO LAWT0N.
REGRET Expressed At THE
GENERALS DECLINATION.

The Country Loser by tho Decision
The Executives High Opinion Of the
Distinguished Savannshisn--The OBJ
iect OF the withdrawal Fully Ex-
planned.
WASHINGTON, April 2S.-Upon receiy-
ing on the last day of the special session
Of the Senate an intimatl0n from that
body that MIR. Lawton must rely for his
qualification to hold Office Of Minister to
Russia upon the pardon granted by the
President prior TO the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment to the constitution,
and learning that the point had been
made against his confirmation that he
was still ineligible under the terms of
that amendment, President Cleveland
promptly withdrew his nomination. This,
IN his Judgment, was manifestly the
proper course to pursue in Difference to
the opinion OF certain members Of the
confirming body, in justice to
Gen. Lawton, and to the end that
the legal question involved might receive
careful and deliberate consideration. 1t
was conceded that the nominee was a fit
and proper person to represent the gov
ernment abroad, aud it was expressly
stated that there was no reason why he
should not be confirmed, except the tech
nical one which concerned his legal status
under the constitutional amendment.
THE DECLARATION OF ELIGIBILITY.
This question was submitted to the At
torney General by the President, and he,
after a careful examination, submitted
his opinion, entirely sustaining the eigi-
bility of Gen. LaWton to the office to
which he had been nominated. Before
the opinion Of the Attorney General had
been communicated to Gen. Law
ton, and under date OF April II, he
wrote to the Secretary Of State
referring to the question which had been
raised and expressing his firm belief in
his eligibility, but requesting that his
name be not further considered in cOnnec-
ton with the place. Before this letter
reached its destination Gen. LaWton re-
ceived q telegram from the Secretaty of
State, based upon the determination Of
the President TO be guided by the opinion
of the Attorney General. informing Gen.
LawtOn that he might proceed with his
preparations to undertake the mission.
Notwithstanding this, Gen. LawtOn i'm
mediately forwarded another letter, dated
April 18, in which he adhered to all that
he had said in his communication Ofs the
day before.
CLEVELAED's LETTER TO LAYTON,
The following is the reply Of the Presi-
dent:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON, April ~, lSS5.i
The Ion. 4. r. LdictOhi- SdUQnnHk. Ga.:
MY DEAR SIR regret exceedingly that
for any reason the administration rs Go be de-
prlYed Of your honorable and Valb able SER
vices in the mission to Russia. The opinion
of the Attorney General BpOn the question OF
yO9r alleged disability under the fourteenth
amendment TO the constitution was so COM
pietely satisfactory, and removed 80 entirely
rom ny DiR9 all doubts .t5 10 y0Hf Gig Oiiity,
that, upon reading it, at once decided TO ask
you to sccept the position. and learn from
the Secretary OF State that he telegraphed
you to that effect. but it seems that your let
its way, which was followed by that
of April Is affirming your decision. sin
cerely regret this deteFm lnatiOn on your part
so unselfshly formed and patrioucally ex-
pressed, and whilst must reluctantly accept
it as an announcement of your deliberate
desIre and personal wish. ! can but feel that
the country is greatly the loser by it. With
sincere regard and high respect, | am your
obedient servant, GROVER CLEVELAND.
GARLAND's OPINION IN FULL.
The following is Attorney General Gar
lands opiniOn.in full:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, d. c., April a. iSS5.j
Shiny opinion is requested on the follow
been a cadet at West Point and held a com
mission as Lieutenant in the United States
army, and in one or both of those characters
had taken an oath which, il Is contended, and
which am to assume az part Of the case sub
mitted, bound him to support the constitution,
afterwards bore arms against the United
States in the war Of the rebellion. On Feb.
g, 1867, he received full pardon and amnesty
for the part he had taken in the rebellion, and
the question is whether he can hold q civil
Office under the United States not%ithstand-
ing the third sectron Of the fourteenth amend
ment OF the constitution which took eneet on
July 20. 1868. and is in the following words:
section 3. No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector OF
President and Wee President, or hold any
Office, civil or military, under the United
States or unaler any state, who, having pre-
viOusly taken an oath as a member Of Con-
gress, or as an officer OF the United States, or
as member OF any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer Of any State to
support the constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in tnsurrection or rebel
lion against the same. or given aid or comfort
to the enemies thereof; but Congress may, by
a vote Of twO-ihirds Of each house, remove
such disability"
The question presented will be disposed OF
upon the legal intent and meaning of this
amendment. Prior to the adoption Of the
amendment the executive. in the exercise Of
an unquesti0nabie power, had granted par
dons TO the person whose case is now under
consideration and others standing in the same
predicament OF guilt. The power to pardon
vested in the executive by the constitution
was not given to be exercised caprciOusly,
but when resorted Co In cases like the present
IL should be in furtherance OF the peace Of
society and the interests OF the government.
THE PRESUMPTION.
Such being the theory it must be presumed
that every exertiOn Of that power IN such
case by the executive department of the
government was In furtherancc Of the OBJ
ieCts for which the power was granted, for
nothing IS better established than that want
OF fidelity 10 its constitutional duties never
20 be imputed 60 any one OF the three great
coordinate departments Of the government
90 il be possible TO avoid IT,. AZ the time the
fourteenth amendment went into operation
Gen. Lawton and other persons referred 10 had
been restored by ypardons previously granted
20 all their rights as citizens, and had become
Dv virtue Of those purdons as innocent a. If
they had never committed the ofeneca for
given. lex parte Garland, wall, G, S81;
United States vs.. Padcford, o Wall, 53l;
United States Va. Klein, l3 Wall, l2S; Arm
strongv We. United states, V. B. l5i; Parpond
w. United States. 1866; Carlisle vs. United
states 10 wall, l4S The question then for
my opinion is whether it WAS the detention Of
the fourteenth amendment 10 take away the
rights which previous pardons had restored,
or. In other words, whether II was the pur-
pose Of that amendment TO cast reprOach
upon the executive department Of the gov.
rrnment by repudiating as unworthy 0fcrcdit
lbs acts ~ unqucstiouahle validity by destroy
inC rights which had undoubtedly vested
under those acts and hy violating the national
faith solemnly pledged.