The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-06-18
violation Of tho Passenger Laws.

violation OF the Passenger Laws.
We find in one of the New Orleans news
papers an article rejecting in very objection
able language on the course of the President,
in renting part of the penalty incurred by
the CAPTAIN and owners Of the British ship
Oltillia. for the violation of the act of Congress
approved February %, lS47, to regulate the
carriage of passengers in merchant vessels; and
Of the act Of May 7, lS4S, to provide for the
ventilation Of passenger vessels, and other
purposes.
), The act of lS47 makes the violation of it,
by carrying more than two passengers to every
five tons of the ship, misdemeanor punish
able on conviction in any United States court,
by imprisonment not exceeding one year, and
by fine of fifty dollars for each passenger.
And if the number Of passengers exceed the
proportion Of two TO every five tons, to the
number of twenty in the whole, then the yes
sci is liable to forfeiture, and 70 such proceed
ings as in forfeitures under the act to regulate
duties The act Of lS4S also provides pecu
mary penalties for its violation, in not keeping
the ship in proper state of cleanliness, and in
not furnishing the passengers proper caboose
for cooking.
The Oitilia had brought over from British
ports an excess Of sixiy-one passengers, for
which the captain became liable to a years
Imprisonment, and the owners 10 fine Of fifty
dollars for each of such passengers, and the
forfeiture of the ship. Other penalties had
also been incurred under the act relating to
the ventilation Of passenger ships.
Under these circumstances, for reasons which
were satisfactory to the collector of New Or
leans and the United States district attorney,
they recommended to the PRESIDENT the re-
mission of the penalties incurred under these
acts, saving only the fine of fifty dollars each
for the sixty-one passengers. amounting TO
three thousand and fifty dollars, and all the
costs and charges that had accrued in the pro-
secution of the offence. The PRESIDENT acted
on these recommendations, and RENTED part
Of the penalties, extenuating facts having been
brought TO his knowledge which seemed to
render it proper that the forfeiture Of the ship
and the imprisonment Of the master should be
conditionally RENTED.
BY the Constitution the PRESIDENT has
power to grant reprieves and pardons for Of
fences against the United States, except in
cases of impeachment. 1t is general power.
without limitation or restriction, saving the spe-
Gifted exception and excluding of necessity the
implied power of either House of Congress to
punish for contempt. To give effect to this inv
piled power in the two branches Of the Legis-
lature, it is necessary to imply the absence Of
power in the PRESIDENT to pardon in such
case. In all other cases the power Of pardon is
unqualified. 1t extends to offences, of every
name and nature, against the United States,
from the highest TO the lowest. 1t includes
this power of RENTING altogether, or of mit-
eating, penalties and forfeitures and, though
the power is in many cases by the laws con
fded to the Treasury Department, it may al
ways in the last resort be exercised by the
PRESIDENT. And, though it is obvious that
no law can abridge constitutional power Of
the PRESIDENT, yet, from abundant caution,
Congress has in several cases inserted pro
viso in its acts investing the Secretary Of the
Treasury with the power Of remittipg or miti-
eating forfeitures, TO the effect that nothing in
such acts should be construed to limit or restrain
the powers Of the PRESIDENT to grant pardonsfor
offences against the United States. The power
being a general, unrestrained, constitutional
power in the PRESIDENT, he may annex condi-
tons to a pardon, and may remit penalty al
together, or upon such terms as in the exercise
of his discretion he may deem equitable and
lar case.
If the PRESIDENT had refused TO listen TO
the recommendation of the collector and dis
trict attorney, and had insisted, in spite Of the
alleged mitigating circumstances, TO enforce the
law in its utmost rigor, the DEMOCRATIC press
would have assaied him no doubt for his harsh.
ness and severity, and have diated on the ne
cesslty Of giving due weight to the extenuat-
ing facts in these cases Of offences against the
police Of the sea. But there being no founda- |
lion for complaint Of undue severity in this
case, the next best charge 10 make is that of |
a loose, not to say licentious, cemency; which, |
coupled with a charge Of an unwarrantable as |
sumption or usurpation Of power, furnishes |
abundant matter for TWO or three very excited |
aud unmannerly articles. With regard to the |
power Of the PRESIDENT in such cases, it is |
not only clear power, but it has been repeat
eddy exercised, and has never before been qucs-
toned. With reference to the propriety Of ex-
ercising that power, the PRESIDENT must rely