The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-04-29


age, would leave 81, 967, ,592 to be divided
between the benefits growing out Of the in
creased number OF letters and the substitu-
ton OF sealed circulars for open ones he
thinks the sctual less in revenue even less
than this. In conclusion, Mr.. Hszen says:
will only add that the results of tvo-cent
postage have more than realized the most
sanguine expectations OF its warmest advo-
Gates"
The Attorney Generals Opinion In the
Lawton Case, and President CIeveIand'a
Reply to His Resignation.
WASHINGTON, April 2s-After the question
had been brought up in the Senate, on the
last day of its special session, as to the eligi-
bility of A. r. LaSton, of Georgia. TO the
position of Minister to Russia, to which po-
sition he had been nominated, President
Cleveland submitted the matter to the At
torney General for an opinion. That opin-
ion is now made public. under date of April
IA. 1t is as follows:
Shiny opinion is requested on the following
case: Alexander K Lawton. VINO mad been a
cadet at West Point and held q commission as
Lieutenant in the United States Army, and in one
or both of these characters, had taken oath
which is contenoec ,ano which am 10 assume, as
part OF The case submitted, bound him TO support
the Conktitutlon,snd afteIward bore arms against
the United STATES in the War of the Rebellion.
On the 9th of February, 1867. he received f0n
pardon and amnesty for the part he had taken in
the rebellion. snd the question is whether he can
hold civil Office under The United States not
wlihstsnding the third section OF the fourteenth
amendment OF the Constitution, which took
effect on the 2Olh OF July, 1855 and is IN the fol-
lowing words:
sec. 8. NO person shall be a Senator or Repre-
sentative in Congress. eloctor of President and
Vice President, DOld any Office, civil or mil-
tsTy, under the United States, or under any State
who, having previous taken an oath as mem
Der OF Congress, or as any officer OF the United
States, or as a member of any state legislature or
as executive or judicial officer OF sny state TO
/ support the Constitution of the United States.
/ shall have engaged lnsurreCtion or rebellion
agaiI st the same, or given aid or comfort 10 the
| enemies thereof. But Congress may, By a vote of
] two-thiTds OF each House. remove such disa-
/ bilty.
The question presented will be disposed OF upon
| the legal intent and meaning OF this amendment
4 Prior 10 the adoption OF the amendment, the EK-
1 ecutive. in the exercise of an upquestionaDle
I power, has granted paroons to the person whose
ca e is now under consideration and others stand
/ Ill The same pIedioament OF guilt. 1he power 20
/ pardon ted in the Executive by the Constitu-
| uon was not given 10 ne exercised capriciously,
but when resOrted TO in cases like the present. 1t
should be In fdrtherauce OF the peace Of society
ana in he in ierest OF the Government.
/ such being the theory it must be presumed that
every exeTtion OF that power in such case by the
! Executive Department Mt of the Government was in
| furtheranoe o, the objects for which the power
was granted, for nothing is better established than
that want OF fidelity 10 its constitutional duties
never to be imputed TO any one of the great Co
! ordinate departments OF the Government II IL be
] II. "A
1 amendment went into operation, Mr.. Lawton and
the other persons referred to had been restored by
The psrdons previously granted TO all their rights
citizens, and had become by virtue OF their par
dons as innocent as If they had never committed
/ the offerse forgiven, The question. then. for my
opin ion Is. whether ii wss the intention OF the
foUru enth amendment to take away rights
| which previous pardons had restored; or, in
! other woIos whether it was the purpose OF that
! Amendment 10 cast reproach upon the EXecu-
| tive Department OF the Government by repudist
| ing, ss unworthy of credit, It's acts OF unques-
| tlonable validity, by destroying the rights which
! had undoubtedly vested under those acts, and by
| violating the National faith and solemn pledges.
/ IL can not be denied that the amendment is as
| comprehensive as language can make IL; (;
| but, at the same time. IL must be remem-
| beIed that the words OF every law are
| t0 be tsk6n in suOoTdinati0n 10 It's intent,
and that where they are general, their sense will
be restricted, IL necessary TO prevent an uni ust
| absurd CONSEQUENCE, which, Ii must be presumed
| the Legislature could not have contemplated. Il
was upon this principle that the supreme Court
OF the United States that held that an individual
hardened Tor taking part iD the rebellion was not
debsrred from suing In the Court OF Claims, by q
law proyioing that an order TO recover the pro
ceeds OF captured or abandoned property, the
claimant must prove tnat ne has never given any
aid or comfort TO the present rebel.
tie ruling OF the Court is quoted and the opinion
proceeds; That this principle ss applicable 10 the
Interpretation OF constitutions as % statutes was
con, lusively established by tue supreme Court
! In the slaughter house cause Is Wall, a. where
the Count refused 10 accept the full mescing OF
certain general words in the first section OF the
fourteenth amendmen nt IN order 10 avoid an in
departure from the structure and spirit of in
sttutions as In the absence OF EXPLICIT language
could not be presumed To have been intended.
Applying. then. this sound rule OF Interpretation
10 the third section of the fourteenth amend ment
j an OF opinion that the cOIseq uence of allowing
lis eeneTsl words OF exclusion 10 operate without
limi alton in iavor OF persons in the situation or
Mr.. LeHton would be productive of an injustice
and disregard OF the public faith which nothing
snort OF the most plcit and controlling language
should authorize If the conclusion ! have
reached is not well founded, then II follows that
| people ShOuld
smend the third section OF the fourteenth
| amendment IL the single particular OF
requiring an unanimous instead OF two-thirds
vote OF both houses 10 remove tbe disability I'M
posed on.all penOns whose disabilities had been
heretofore received by two-thlTds vote would
plying 10 Congress- result which would not be
a whit les a. war with justice than what would
occur II Mr.. Lawtcn ang others in his situation
we're 70 have been degraded by the Amendment 70
the COnciticn of disability from whtcn their par
dons had raised them. am also Of the opinion
] that Mr. Lswton j. not affected by the
amendment because, At the time II was ordained,
the offense on which the disability imposed is
A based could not have been imputed 10 him for
| the reason that he had By virtue of his pardon
become "a new man endowed with new credit
and capacity. his guilt had been blo'ted out. and
he became "a innocent as IL he had never com
mitted the ofeDse" j." Whstever was his cornec-
tion with the rebellion, the effect oil the pardon
TO close the eyes OF the law 10 perception of
it. / am Of opinion, therefore. that Mr.. Lawt0n
is qualified TO mold a civil Office under the GOV
eminent OF the United States have the nonor
| A. II. GARLAND.
Attorney General.
To the President