The Arkansas banner., 1850-02-26

proceeding should have been adopted, which would have offended Haut opportunity to show cause why he should not have been remsnded under the former sentence, and he conld have done fully. RatcliFes case Fosters C. L. il. Patrick Maadans case. Leach c. L. 229. The People vs James Gaines Rep. g. And in the last men tioHed case, Insanity, R-bealsh. and indigsBt cir eEmstanees were held saficeut to excuse non- compliance with condition. and further time was allowed by tho court for that purpose. AicIes case Leach C. L 333. Hunt was most certainly law fully at large-hs had no, escaped from the peni- tentiAry, and how coaId he be remsaded without judicial proceeding The set of the legislature does not require any IL is true bat the constitution does and ihereia ths set Is clearly invalid.
 But allowing that the Governor may pardon con ditOnally. I contend that there was such eOmpI. snee ca the part of Hnat, as entities him to h:s discharge.
 1 The only condition of the pardon was that che should leave the State without deay':- which the law has prescribed 10 be in ten days; and written that time he was beyond our borders. The pardon did not contain the very important words. "and never again return 10 it." Digest 424. We mus, not forget the fundamental rule, that the pardon s to be construed benefcialIy for the convict and strongly against the king, must we forget that the law Involving highly penal consequences il does, must be strictly construed We only judge of the intentions of the Governor by the act of pardon, and when refer 10 that and the law on that subject, see that leaving the State and never again returning to it, different egress and ingress, the contemplating departure; the other requiring perpetual absence. Although connected by tine conjunction, "and'' yet they | oE distinct nature, and ihe one might well exist in pardon without ths other But independent of this, the law gives the Governor the power of par doning such conditions as he may think proper. l The general words of penal statute, shall be restrained for the benefit of him against whom the penalty is inflicted Penal statutes taken strictly ' and literally Dwarrs on Stat 136. Thus, if the law be that for certain offence, a shall lose his right hand and the offender hath had bis right hand before cut of in the he shaA not lcse his left hand, but the crime shall rather pass wi out the punishme nt which the law assigned than the letter O. the law shall be extended. Bacoas 1 Msxins 5s--59. The Statute F. c. I2 having enacted that those who were convicted of stealing horses, should not have the benefit of clergy, the the judges conceived that his did not extend 10 him that should steal but horse; and therefore pro- cured a new act for that purpose in tho following | year. Dwaris 736-737. The law of England does not tolerate constructive offences nor arbrory [ punishments No man ineurs penalty unless the act which subjects him to il is elsary both with
 in the spirit and the letter of the statute imposing such penalty. "if these rules are olatsd,, said Best C. J. 'the fa,e of accused persons, s decided by the arbilrary discretion of judges and not by the express authority of the hws'' Fletcher vs Id Sondes Bingham 5e0. We canno; hold that the | words 10 leave the State. imply that person shau not return to il again. because erpressio unius ssi ercuse oherias the expression of one thing ex- : cludes auo,her. aud (a) because inc prohibition against returning. is separately and distinctly ex. pressed in the statute and (3) because that would be to extend the Statute by an equitable construc- tion which the rules of law does not tolerate. for surely if a Statute shall never have au equitable construction to overthrow an estate (Dwarris 729) il cannot have to destroy personal liberty.
 The Governor. then. in granting this pardon, only required him to leave the State, and did not prohibit him from returning. With that condition Hunt literally compiled, and on tha; ground, he is entitled to a discharges nothing moTe could be de
 msnded of hun the forging authorities amply demonstrate and whatever the intention of the ov- ernor was. to the return of Hunt to Arkanas. or whether the latter compiled with the spirit of the condition are enquiries foreign io this question: II the Governor meant to prohibit his return it should have been 50 expressed in the pardon, as il is in the law. As the case stands, have oniy to say, he was not prohibited from returning: per- petual exile not ''nomnated in the bond" and the omission of that express stipuitioa authorized Hunt to conclude that ater he oncs left the State
 he nigh, return with safety; and such too, is the fact. He did not, and has not yet broken the con diiion of his pardon Is IIisrats compliance sui kcientl It is, as the foregoing authorities show. but in addition to those. refer the court to Mu- ler's case Leach's C. l.. 8, Mandan's case ib 220, and Aicles case ib 33o. where it is held that lite rate compliance with a condition in pardon is 1 sufficient. Miilefis is high authority, al- though no formal adjudication publicly communicated upon It, but it is reported e W Blackstone Rep. 797) that all ths judges except Lord Chief Justice Dc Grey. met q, the chambers of Lord Mansfield, in i772, and unanimously of that opinion. Relying's Rep. 4j.
 1 II Hun, was worthy of exscatve eiemency in the 6rS instance he has since done nothing to iorfei; the claim. There can be 10 prejudice ln this 'rbu- nal agans; him The god of justice among the Chi nese is represented biiad. inteading to indicate tha, rich poor, friends or foes, eqasiIy pn- known ia judical tribana.-snd so in this court of last resort. this wi be decided on the law and not on what Hunt WIS, IS CT may become. Asa matter of policy ;hink he shoaid not have returned 1 -po, Ie, his loot on ATksssas seh 'o even accom- | piish the peseeta. and humane mission waich brought hin within the reach oi tbe officers o the law. because he was obliged 10 encounter deep and abiding prejudiees existing in this community But he had right 10 do it-the policy Of the set being quite didefen; thing know 1t can be said that n. A.