The Arkansas banner., 1850-02-26
Vol. VII.

Of twelve men, according io the course of the com mon law. HOke vs. Henderson. 4 Dev. Is. l In the Roman lr civil law, thoss judgments wers termed capital by which criminal was prohibited l from fire and water, or condemned 10 death, 10 |, title Is, ssc2, page ss6- And VIC know that the punishment f exile has been regarded in all civilized nations as dreadful in its character scarcely less so tan that of death itself
 It appears to htve been deci cd In South Carolina in the of stte vs. Smith, Bailey 25S; State vs. Anderson. 3 Bailey. 5i6; State vs. Fuller. l McCOrd. IFS; and in Pennsylvania in FIavel's case, Watts x Sergeant, l97, that the Governor may annex to his pardsn conditions subsequent, not in consistent with lav, and on their performance the original senteme may be enforced. Oar libra ries do not furnish these reports, that it is i'm possible to ascertain the precise facts ia each or the legal questions involved. The cases may have been decided hastily and without argamsni-and the point inc vaittity of subsequent may not have been alluded to at all. Experience warns not to rely mere diges;s ia this ags of rapid book. masking, they are valuable only as references Butgrauting for the present. that these cases entitled 10 respectful consideration, still they are not only cOunterbaIsnced by the Authcri- ties referred to by ne. but they subject to the very important and controlling qualification that the condition must se consistent with law. or what amounts to the sauIs thing, allowed by law. Now think it has been sufficiently demonstrated, {l) that the Governor G this State does not possess as penary powers 10 pardon ihe King, and conse- qdentlv that because the latter may annex condi- tons subsequent. does not follow that the Gov ernor may do the sime thing; @ that owing to the pecuiiarity of he Constitution of this State, and in view of il the Governor cannot lawfully re- qure any one to leave the State. and that such condition in pardon void. and may De rightfuliy disregarded; and that he consequence is that the pardon becomes ab.olsie; (3) that the legislature has no constitutional power 10 require such a condition to bs anneHsj; and that the law that subject is utterly void and certainly outrageous.
 The condition subsequent then, in the pardon of Hunt b-ing Illegal. ;he cases last cited do apply but if they did, grea, question like this ought to be determined on constitutional grounds and the principles of reason. II is material to observe too,
 
 |" that the Governor shall have power to grant re- prieves and pardons after conviction, except in cases of impeachment, in such manner and on such terms and under such restrictions as he may think proper" Rice's Digest, 40.
 The Constitution of Pennsylvania provides that the SSyer'ef" shall have power to remit fines aud fOrfei.ures, and grant reprieyes and Parons except t,.a .oFi =. This is fuller than the clause in the South Carolina Constitution, because il makes no distinction 10 pardons before after conviction, and indeed with this solitary exception it eoners The power far language is concerned, faliy and absolutely ii is possessed by the King of Great Britain. The decisions in these States doub,iesss influenced, if no, expressly based on the peculiar shraseoiogy of their respee,vs Consultations certainly canno, have any controlling weight the question are dis cussing.
 IL appears 10 meas a clear proposition tha, the repugnaney of inc condition in his pardon to the subject, matter would alone demand ils rejection. Now what was the effect of the pardon upon Huu,l The effect of il wss in the language of Blackstone. to make him
 
 and forleiGres; and to give him character and credit. 1 Com. l02, Baam Clause lii ls7. When the sentence was released, and inc prison door opened and he passed beyond its thres hold Into the community again, he was competent witness, legal voter. aud a constitutional citizen Ii he was not, what WIS he' shall be gratitied ie hear his civil condition described account of il. .fs sL al kx indicated, he was Deither alien, denizen, subject oI citizen: he at large in the world without civil rights of any kind, thankful for the privilege oi breathing fresh air, and witnessing the morning sun flashing his golden rays into the heavens; bu, al the time conscious of his dsfranchised con dision. He is still a convicted feIon, thoagh re leased, and the sword of Damocies, is hanging over his head su4pended by hair wherever he may go; he is nsulted by the name of liberty without the permission to enjoy it's benstis-Iike Tautalas per ishiag with hunger in sght of delicious fruits.
 To use the language cf Van ve,chen. Senator in People Peass J. C. 335; '.he will be recognized by the parcon as person legally raised from the tomb of the State prison. and by provisO of .hs kind. now under consideration, il vii be de- cared in the same pardon, that 10 every legal in tent he sha be considered as remaining in his legal grave. The incoDgruity between the pardon and proyso. renders the relection of the latter undis- pensable in order 10 give legal eec. to the for mer."
 Al least during the len days he was full citizen "a free maa. "sO long estates upon subsequent condition continue anbfoken, they remain in the same situation if no qualification had been an- neHed." Per. Kent. | Com l25. The condition was not broken within that period, that even on this doctrine of estates, Hunt would be citizen and much mese forcibly mus, it be so where honor and human liberty are concerned. According to the institutes of Emperor Jassinian, it is aa in- flexible rule, that freedom once obtained shall mol. afterwards be revoked.'' Cooper's Jns,inian, b , It. le sec. page 2ll. Is not this too, the rule of "ie common law Or arc we required to go to lm- PeriA Rome for authority to vinaieais ihe liberty Of The citizen. If Hunt vested with the rights