The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-29
GENERAL LAWTON'S PARDON
Mr.. Garland Thinks 1t Removed the
GeOrgian's Political Disabilities,
And Qualified Him to Hold Office Under the
United States-preSident Ceveland's
Endorsement of Lawtcn.

had been brought up in the Senate, on the last
day of the special session. to the eligibility of
A. r. Lawton, of Georgia, to the position of
minister to Russia, to which position he had
been nominated, President Cleveland submitted
the matter to the Attorney general for an opin-
ion. That opinion is made public, under
date of April Il 1t is as follows:
"Sir-My opinion is requested on the follow
ing case: Alexander II. Lawton, who had been
cadet at West Point, and held 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 which | am to
assume as part of the case submitted
bound him to support the Constitution,
United States in the war of the Re-
bellion. On the 9th of February, 1867, he
received 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 notwithstanding the third section
of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitu-
ton, which took effect on the Goth of July, 1868
and is in the following words:
Section 3. No person shall be senator or repre-
sentative in Congress or eector of President and
ycepresident or hold any office, civil or military
under the United States. under any State who
having previously taken oath member of
Congress any officer of the United States,
membe of any State legislature, executive
or judicial officer of any State, to support the Cons
tuition OF the United States, shall have engaged in in
surrection rebellion against the same. given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
may, by vote of two thirds 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
unquestionable power, had granted pardons to
the person whose case is now under considera-
ton, and others standing in the same predica-
The HCn vpStp1
the executive by the Constitution was not given
to be exercised capriciously, but, when resorted
to in cases like the present, it should
be in furtherance of the peace of
society and in the interests of the government.
Such being the theory, it must be presumed that
every excrtion of that power in such case by
the executive department Of the government was
in furtherance of the objects for which the
power was granted; for nothing is better estab
lished than that want of fidelity to its consti
tutlonal duties is never to be imputed to any
one OF the great coordinate departments of the
government, if it be possible to 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 of their pardons, as
innocent as if they had never committed the
offense forgiven. The question them for my
opinion is, whether it was the intention Of the
fourteenth amendment to take away rights
which previous pardons had restored, or, in
other words. whether it was the purpose OF that
amendment to cast a reproach upon the execu-
ing. as unworthy of credit, it's acts of
unGuestionable validity, by destroying rights
which had undoubtedly vested under
those acts, and by violating the national faith
solemnly pledged 1t cannot be denied that the
amendment is as comprehensive as language
could make it, but, at the same time. it must be
remembered that the words of every law arc TO
be taken in subordination to its intent, and til at
where they are general their sense will be re-
stricted, if necessary to prevent an unjust or alb
surd consequence which, it must be presumed,
the legislature could not have contemplated.
1t was upon this principle that the Su-
preme Court of the United States held
that an individual pardoned for taking part in
the rebellion was not debarred from suing in the
Court of Claims by a law providing that in order
to recover the proceeds Of captured or aban-
doned property the claimant must prove that
he had never given any aid or comfort to the
Rebellion"
The ruling of the court is quoted and the
opinion proceeds:
THAT this principle is applicable to the inter
probation of the Constitution as to the statutes
was conclusively established by the Supreme
Court in the Slaughter house cause is Wall, IN
where the court refused to adopt the full mean
ing of certain general words in the first section
of the fourteenth amendment in order to avoid
an Interpretation that would have involved so
-
of our institutions as, in the absence of explicit
language could not be presumed to have been
| intended. Applying then, this sound rule of
Interpretation to the third section Of the four
teenth amendment, | am Of the opinion that the
consequence of allowing its general words of ex-
clusion to operate without limitation in favor
of persons in the situation of Mr.. Lawton, would
be productive Of an injustice and disregard of
the public faith, which nothing short of the most
explicit and controlling language should author
ize If the conclusion | have reached is not
we'll founded then it follows that, if the
people of the United States should
amend the third section of the fourteenth
amendment in the single particular Of requiring
a unanimous instead of two thirds vote of both
houses to remove the disability imposed, all
person whose disabilities had been heretofore
removed by two thirds vote would find them
selves again under the necessity of applying to
Congress-a result which would not be whit
less at war with justice than what would occur
if Mr. Lawton and others in his situation were
t0 have been degraded by the amendment to the
condition of disability from which their pardons
had raised them.
II am also of opinion that Mr.. Lawton is not
affected by the amendment, because at the time
it was ordained, the offences on which the dis
ability imposed is based could not have been inn
puted to him. for the reason that he had, by yir-
tue of his pardon, become "a new man. endowed
with credit and capacity, his guilt had
been b0tted out. and he became as in
noccnt if he had never committed the
offense.' Whatever was his connection with the
Rebellion, the effect of the pardon was to close
the eyes of the law to a perception Of it. am
of opinion, therefore, that Mr.. Lawton is quail
fled to hold civil Office under the government
of the United States. / have the honor to be
yours very respectfully,
"A. H. GARLAND, Attorney general
ITO the President"
THE PRESIDENTS REGRETS.
Before the opinion of the Attorney general had
been communicated to Mr.. Lawton, and under
date of April H. he wrote the Secretary of State,
expressing his firm belief in his cligi-
biity. but requesting that his name be
not further considered in connection
with the place. Before this letter reached its
destination. Mr.. Lawton received a telegram
from the Secretary of State, based upon the de-
termination Of the President to be guided by the