The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1885-05-14

and Void.
from the Chicago Tribunal
The administration has been in travail
over Lawton for some time, but il is at last
definitely announced that the distinguished
rebel has declined. and, in order to let
him down easily" the opinion of the At
torney General as to his eligibility is pub
lished, together with complimentary note
| from the President. Every Union soldier
and every patriotic citizen should read
these documents carefully and thought
fully. 80 as TO understand how the work of
sapping and mining is being carried on by
the ex-rebels who are in control at Wash
| ington.
Rebel Lawton was educated Mt West
Point and afterward held commission in
the United States army. He took an oath
TO support the Constitution and bear true
allegiance to the Government. but when the
Rebellion broke out enlisted in the Rebel
army and spent four years seeking to de-
stroy the Government which had nourished
him and to which he had pledged his faith
Snder oath. In 1867 Lawton was included
in one of the sweeping amnesty proclama-
tons issued by Andrew Johnson. and the
Attorney General now holds that this made
| the Rebel new man" with has guilt
| if he had never committed any otfense."
This is comparatively new doctrine. Here
tofore it had been supposed that the effect
OF the pardons and amnesty proclamations
issued by Andrew Johnson was simply to
relieve the Rebels from or minal response
bility or penal punishment for treason and
to res ore them to the right of suffrage. 1t
was not believed that the effect of these
wholesale pardons was to make treason en-
TREY respectable and to place the Rebels
on an equal plane in every respect with the
Union soldiers.
In fact the people supposed that in adopt
ing the fourteenth amendment they had
provided against unrepentant rebels enjoy
ing the honors and rewards of the Govern
nent. The provision simply was that no
rebel like Lawton, who had previously tax
en- an oath to support the Constitution,
should be eligible to Office unless he would
apply to Congress and secure restoration
of his political rights. This Lawton al
ways refused TO do, and the Attorney Gen
eral now holds that the Andy Johnson par
don washed this unrepentant rebel white
as snow, while the provision of the four
teenth amendment seeking to make dis
tinction between patriotism and treason is
wholly null and void.
In the course of his decision Mr.. Garland
says:
"The question, then, for my opinion is
whether it was the intention of the four
teenth amendment to take away the rights
which the previous pardons had restored
or, in other words, whether it was the pur-
pose of that amendment TO cast a reproach
upon the Executive Department of the
Government by representing as unworthy
of credit its acts of unquestioned validity
by destroying the rights which had un-
hoe
and by violating the national faith solemnly
pledged.
at cannot be denied that the amendment
| is as comprehensive as language could make
it, but ut the same time it must be remem-
| bered that the words of every law are TO be
taken in subordination to its intent, and
|. that where they are general their sense will
be restricted if necessary to prevent an un-
! just or absurd consequence which it must
be presumed the Legislature could not
have contemplated.
The Attorney General does not state the
case fairly. The question before him was
not whether the fourteenth amendment
should be construed to have one meaning
| or another, but whether it should have any
meaning at all. If it will not apply to Law
ton it is complete nullity, and will entire
| ~ fail of the purpose for which it was
adopted. The question which the Attorney
| General took into consideration was
whether this provision Of the Constitution
was null and void or not and it is, there
fore, wretched piece of quibbling for him
to talk about constituting words in accordance
with the manifest intent when his ruling is
that the provision has no effect whatever,
but is completely nullifed by the Andy
johnson pardons.
Equally sophistical is the Attorney Gen.
| erals talk about the legal rule which re-
| quires one department of the Government
to refrain from casting reproach on another
or bringing its decisions into question He
thinks that for such a reason the full effi-
cacy Of the Andy Johnson pardons cannot
be disputed. But this is not a case between
| different departments of the Government.
| The fourteenth amendment was not the
work Of any of the departments. but of the
people, who can question the decisions of
their officials and even east reproach" on
| them whenever they see fit, and may effec-
| tually estop any obnoxious action by means
| of an amendment to the Constitution. Mr.
Garlands legal dogma has no application in
| such case.
1t is with poor grace that the Attorney
| General cites the noted slaughter house
cases" as tending to sustain his doctrines
in regard to Lawton. What was decided in
those cases was that general language in
| the COuSutuuOldl COUlu nOt
be construed TO have effects that the people
never intended, and which were outside of
the plain and unmistakable purpose of the
provision. Mr. Gar and, however, con-
strues the language in such manner as to
defeat the plain intent and make the
amendment meaningless. What does he
suppose the amendment was adopted for if
not to exclude unrepentant rebels from
office? If it will not serve this purpose
what possible meaning or effect is there
| in it2
Mr. Garland, however, is of the opinion
that after rebel secured an Andy Johnson
pardon it would be unjust to debar him
from the Offices and rewards of the Gov
eminent, and he therefore feels obliged to
construe the fourteenth amendment in such
a way that injustice" will not result. He
accordingly deprives it Of all meaning. The
decision rests simply on the opinion of the
Attorney General that il would be unjust
to debar unrepentant rebels from office, and
for this reason he construes the language Of
the amendment so freely as to nullify its
meaning.
Mr. Cleveland indorsee tho decision and