Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-04-29

of captured or abandoned property the claim
ant must prove "that he has never given any
and or comfort 70 the present rebellion"
The court say nc rs not TO be supposed that
Congress intended 10y the general language OF
the act TO encr0aCh upon any OF the prerogH-
tives of the President, and especially that be-
nign prCrOgaJiyc of mercy which lies in the
pardonmg power. 1t is more reasonable to
conclude that claimants restored to their
rights OF property by the mower OF the Presi-
dent were not in contemplation OF Congress in
passing the act and were not intended to be
embraced by the requirement in question.
RESTRICTION OF GENERAL TRIMS.
All the general terms in the statutes
should be limited in their application, so as
not 20 lead TO Injustice, oppression, or any un-
constitutional operation, If That be possible.
III VIII be presumed that exceptions were IN
tended which would avoid results of that ma
ture. carlisle vs.. u. s., ld wall. p. 1873. In
very important case recently decided the
same COurt restricted the general language Of
a statute in order 10 avoio giving is a sense
thnt would have involved Congress in viola
ton of treaty obligation: Chew Heong vs..
u. s., ll2 u. 5. p. 900. The same doctrine rs
iorciby presented in the United states vs..
KIRBY, Wan, sS3.
That this principle is as applicable to inter-
pretations Of the constitution rs To the stat
utes, was cOnclusiveiy established by the Su-
preme Court in the Slaughter house cases
llG Wall, p. al where the court refused to
adopt the full meaning OF certain general
words in the first section of the fourteenth
tiOn that would have Involved $50 great de-
parture from the structure and spirit OF our
institutions rs, in the absence of eN
pliclt language, could not be pre-
Applying, then, this sound rule OF interpreta-
tion to the third section OF the fourteenth
amendment am of the opinion that The con-
sequences of allowing sgenera words OF eN-
clueion cooperate without limitation in favor
of per6Ons in the situation OF MT Law ton
would be productive of an injustice aud a
disregard OF the public falth which nothing
short Of most explicit and controlling Ian
guage should authorize.
WEIGHT or THE CONCLUSION.
If the conclusion / have reached is not wen
founded. then 1t follows That if the people ot
the United States should amend the third
section OF the fourteenth amendment in the
singular particular Of requiring a unanimous
instead ol twO-t thirds vote ii both houses to
remove disability imposed, aN persons whose
disabilities h6d been. therefore, removed by q
tW0-thirds vote would hn4 themselves again
under the necessity of applying 70 C0ngtess,
a result which W0aid not be q whit less q &
war with justice than what would occur II
mr. LaWton ard others IN lis situation were
held to have been degradet by the amend
ment TO the condition OF disability from
which their pardons had raised them. I am
also OF the opinion that MIR. LaWton is not
affected by the amendment, because at the
time 1t was ordained the oflenses on
which the disability imposed is based
could not have been imnuted to him for the
reason that he had, by virtue Of his pardon,
become "a new man." endowed with "a new
credit and capacity" His guilt had been
"blotted out" and he had become "as inno-
cent as if he had never committed the
oGense" Whatever was his connection with
the rebellion the effect of the pardon was to
close the eyes of the law to perception fit.
These positions have been lald down upon
the greatest consideration by the Supreme
Court Of the United States in cases already
cited, which make it entirely clear that to
have accused Mr.. LawtOn OF any Of the above
named Offenses at the time the amendment
was adopted, would have been defamation
for which an action might have lain. Two
years before the amendment became a law the
supreme Court laid down in case already
cited that pardon had o eleausing and reno
waiting effect. have described. aud it almost
seems like imputing to the Trainers of the
third section Of the aInendmeg either ignor-
EAcc e tns law o. s ltiIJ Jts5 - u shafe, to
say that they intended to include persons
already pardoned without specially referring
to them.
an of the opinion that SIR. Lawton is
qualified to hold civil Office under the govern
ment OF the United states. / have the honor
to be you're, very respectfully,
A. II. GARLAND, Attorney General.
To the PgesjHeNf.