The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-08-21

Tine NotA0sal Psrd0nnug Power
OPINION ON THE PARpoSING pOwER OF THs rEEsr-
DENT, IN TIE CASE OF NEssRs DHAYrox AND
sAYEs.
by tho laws of Maryland 1877. chapter 2 section
4, Is is provided that any person who ehau steal
any negro or other save" : or who shall counsel,
hire, aid abet, msnd any person or persons"
10 do so, shall suffer death felon. The punish
meut has since been changed co imprisonment, for
term not less than seven, nor moro than twenty
years.
Fourteen years later by the act of l75l, chspter
IL, section 10, it was provided that If any free
person shall entice and persuade any slave within
this province TO run away. aud who shall actually
run away from the master owner, or oycrseer, and
be convicted thereof, by confession verdict Of
jury, upon indictucos iLformation; shall for
felt and pay the full value &C such slave to the
ter owner of such slave. I" be levied by execution
on the goods, chattos, lauds, tenements, Of the
offender, and in Of Inability to pay the same,
shall suffer one years imprisonment without bail or
mainprise."
Still later, by the act OF 1906 chapter 81, section
~, the transporting Of iay slave or person, held
10 service" from the State, was made distinct Of.
fence, for which the offender made liable in an
action Of damages, and also by indictment
By the act of Congress organizing the District of
Columbia, (Feb. 81, tSOl) it was declared that
:" the laws Of the State Of Maryland, as thcy now
exist, shall bo and force in that part Of
the sad District, which ceded by that State to
the United States. and by them soce 2ted as afore-
said. Under this provision these ancient laws of
Maryland are to this day Of in force in the District
of Columbia.
Messrs. Drayton s. Says. on indictment and
trial, under tho act of 1881, for stealing slaves,
were acquitted; the jury rendering a verdict Of
"not guilty" Resort IS then had to the statute
Of l796, ch. 81, sect 10, ~ ioilows:-
XIX And DO II epactea 'htt aoy person or persons,
who shall hereafter be convicted of giving pass {,
any Sieve, or person hello tn shall be found
assist by a6sico donation herwso the trans
this State. or by any other unlawful means deprivins
Master of he of his slave, person
held to service for every such offence the party sggcved
shall recover damages ia action on tue against
such offender offenders such offender offenders
also shall be liable upon indie aud conviction upon
verdict, confession otherwise In this State any
County Court where such offence shall happen DO fined
not exceeding two hundred dollars the discretion
of the Court half Of thu master or owner
Of such slave the other half the county school In
there 30 any such scnoo the Of the county
Under this statute, proceedings instituted by
the Attorney for the District OF Columbia, against
these parties, in seventy -four different indictments
eacn indictment being founded on the aliedged
transporting of single slave. On conviction,
Drayton was sentenced Oh each indictment to fine
OF Sl40, and COSTS in each case $40 40, amounting
in the SUM total to $li502 20 On conviction,
Sayrs YVES sentenced on each indictment to fuo Of
500, ard costs, in each Sl7 IS, amounting in
the sum total to $50 II One half Of the fines
owners Of the slaves transported; the other half
TO the county school. or, In case there DO no such
school, to the use OF the county Afterwards, on
motion Of the Attorney tcr The District, they worc
fine End costs are paid IN Pursuance of this SON.
tence, and on this motion. they have been detained
IN prison In the city Of Washington from April,
loAo, and still in prison. tble from poverty,
as to the power Of tho President TO pardon them, SO
at least as to relieve them from their imprisonment
The peculiar embarrassment in this case arises
hom the nature Of the sentence II it were simply
sentence Of Imprisonment, his 20 ver would be
questionable. So also, if il were sentence Of i'm
prisonmeat, with fine snpsradied, payable to the
United States, his power would be unquesionable;
and the same power would extend to the case OF q
fine payable to the United States, with imprison-
mont as tho alternative or non-payment Of the
fine.
But in the present case, the Imprisonment is the
alternative for nom payment of fines, which not
payable to the United States. but to other rartes
viz: the slave owners and The county. 1t is impor-
tant, however, to bear in mind that these fnos are
mere donation to these parties aud not compep-
saton for services rendered These parties not
inormers nor were the proceedings in the nature Of
a qui tam action.
II should DO distinctly undsrstood, at the outset,
that the proceedings against Drsy.on dSayrs
not at tho suit of any informer private individual
but ut the prosecution Of the United states by In
dictmcnt They are, therefore, removed from the
authority Of the English cases. which protect til
shs-e &c a. informer after judgment from remission
by pardon from the crown.
The power of the Pres'ieo. ia tho present case
may be regarded first, in the tight of the common
avs secondly, under the statutes Of Maryland and
thirdly, under the constitution Of the United
tate5.
First AS to the commo1 ltw, It may DO doubt
full whether, according to early authorities. til
hardening power cab b. usod 40 rs to bar or divest
any loyal interest, benefit, advantage, vested in
a private Individual. Il i broadly stated by
English writer's, that it cannot be used, q iaw-
KRIS p. a32, cap. 81 81; IL Who's Abridge-
ment; 80 Prerogative of kins H. art -. But this
principle does not see TO % sustained by practical
cases in the United State except in the instances:
of infcrners and qli tam iou while. Oh coca
sion, in leading case III kentucky, it was rejected
(Routt rs. Flemster. Z, J Marshall, 1922.
But il is clearly established that, where enc is
allotted to public body, public Office, for
public purpose. it may be RENTED by pardon.
This may be illustrated by several cases.
las when, in Pennsylvania the fine wa' for
the case Of tho county u this case tue court
into the treasury, the constitutional right Of the
Governor to pardon the offender, aud adult tho fine
orfcrteiture, remains in tul free They can have
no moro vested interest J" the money than tho
commonwealth, under the circumstances, would
have had and it cannot be doubted that, until the
money reaches the treasnry. the Governor has the
power to remit. In the of costs. private per-
sons are interested in them but Gnos and for
FIXTURES they are impose principles Of public
policy The latter, Their fore, under the exclu-
sive control of the Governor" Commonwealth
as. Denniston,9; Watts, III The samc point is
also illustrated by N Ind ana; Holiday VS..
the people; s Gilman. 2li 2l7
2-As where, in Georgia, the 6ne was to be paid
TO an inferior court, for county purposes johns
Georgia, Kelly, COG, ono
3-As who're, in South Caroline. tho fi9e was to
be paid to the Ccmm,s.ioner. uf Public Buildings,
for public purposes The ! ite W simpson, Bsi
10y, 37S. Or the Com --',aers ofPublc Roads,
tho State VS.. Williams ! Mott sc. McCord, rs. Sec
also Rowe vs State, BAY, $50
According to these authorities. tho portion of
the fine allotted to the county, tothe school. may
remtted. OF this There be no doubt.
Secondly.-The statue ot Marylaod, anterior to
sIa
also be regarded rs al independent source of light
this question, e'Dce these statutes have been
made the law of the district Aud here the con-
elusion seems to be easy.
by the constitution Of Mtrylsrd. adopted 18th
August 1f16, It was dec'are,--'' The Governor may
grant repTioves pardoae for any crime, except ia
such cases where the inw shsl otherwise direct
Notwithstanding thcsc strong words of graut, which
seem 10 be rs broad he common Law, il was
further declared, If ~ frmose all doubt, by til
Iecisln.,re- IN LISP. Ln-n - What tho Gnyernor