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


words Of another writer that tho power 10 genera
and unqualified. and that tho remission Of dnos DO
nalti~s, and torfe,turcs under the revenue lass
included in it." Opinions Of Attorney GenslEl
On this power, Mr. Justice Story thus rem srks:-
81 The power OF remission Of fines penalties aud fer
feitures is also Included in it, and may in the last
resort, be exercised by the Executive, although I!
IL in many cases by our la confined TO the Treasury
Department. No laa can abridgc the constitutions 81
powers of the executive department. or interrupt its
right to interfere by pardon in such cases INSTANCES
Of the exercise OF this rower by the President, in
nitsing fnes and penalties, in not within the
scope of the laws giving authority to the Treasury
Department. have repeatedly ocourred>, aud their
obligatory force has never been questioned" (Story,
Com. On Constitution, vol ii, Sec ,504
1t has been decided by the Supreme Court, after
elaborate argument, that the So retary of the Trea-
sury has aabho,ity. under the Remission Act Of the
I'd March, 1871, cap 36l, " to remit forfeiture or
penalty accrliug underline revenue Las mt any time,
judgment for the penalty. until the money SLY
paid to the Collector for distribution aud such
permission extends to he shares Of the forfeiture
penalty to which the office OF the customs are enti
tied well to the interest of the United States
In giving his opinion in this case Mr.. Justice John
son, of South Carolina, made use Of language much
in point. 'hecy and justice" he said, could only
have been administered by halves, il collectors could
have hurried causes 10 judgment, and then cluag to
the one hat Of the forfeiture, ia contempt of the
cries of distress, she mandates of the Secretary
Omitted States Morris, 10 Wheaton, 303
A case has occurred in Kentucky, to which refer
eDce has been already made, in which is confident.
~ and broadly assumed that the perdoning power
(under the Consttutionl extends even to the penal
ties due 10 informers The folio wing age occurs
in the opinion of the Court - The act of I32}says
that any prosecuting attorney, who shall rosecut
any person 70 conviction under it, shall be entitled
to 70 per cent Of the amount OF such fine shall be
collected, The act gives the prosecuting attorney
one fourth Of the money when collected, but vest
a II est in he mn or ppnt San
rate and distinct from that Of the common wealth,
that would screen his share from the effect Of any
legal operation which should, before collection alb
rogate the whole or part of it. Ii would require
language of the strongest and most exploit chGracte
to authorize presumption that the Lcgisla'u in
tended to confer any such right. We could never
presume an intention to control the Governor
sttutional power to remit zines and forfeituTes /
he can IN this way be restrained in the exercise Of
his power to remit for the fourth Of fine, so
can he be from the half or the whole THIS
part of his prerogGtivo cannot be curtaled.
with the exception of tie Of treason, his
power to remit fines and forfcures graut rcprieves
and pardons unlimited, illimitable and uncoutrol
liable. 1t has nc bounds but his own discretion. 1t
isno doubt polite and proper for the Lcgisa ure to
incite prosecuting attorneys aud informers by CIV
ing them portion Of fnes when collected but in
SO DOING the citizen cannot be debarred ofhis right
of appeal to executive ciemenoy.' Routt rs Elem
ster, ~ j Marshall, 1872.
According to these authorities, it seems reasona
bic to infer, that, under the constitution Of the
United States tie pa,donng 20 wer. which is cle1r
~ applicable to tie offence Of g transporting"
in question These penalties, though allotted to
the owners and the county, when finally collected,
are neither more nor less than the punishment,
der sentence of criminal court for an offence Of
which the parties stand convicted upon indictment.
They can be collected and acquitted only by the
United States. No process for this purpose is at
the command Of the slave owner He had no cou-
troll whatever over the prosecution, at any stage,
csrr>~
The very statute, under which these public pro-
ceedings instituted, in the name Of the United
States, secured to the slave owner his private
ton on the case for damages-thus separating the
the duty Of the President to keep SEPARATE except
the nal collection and distribution Of the pena
ties Public policy and the ends Of justice require
that the punishment for criminal offence should,
in every case be exclusively subject to t1e supreme
pardoning power, without dependence upon the will
Of any private person. An obvious case viii Illus
trate this Suppose. in tie Of Draytcn x Sayrs
it should be cteitained beyond doubt that the con-
tue Of the Judgment. the slave owners have
an interest in the Imprisonment Of these
men, which cannot 10 touched. then the pr-
soners, unable to meet these heavy Liabilities.
must continue in perpetual Imprisonment, or owc
their release to the acci1ent Of private good will
The President, notwithstanding lis beneicert power
to pardon under the constitution, will b, powcrless
to remedy this evil But such state Of things would
be monsfous and any Interpretation Of the const-
tuition is ,noastrous, which thus ties his hards.
Mercy and justice would be rendered, no. merely by
balves but owing to the inability ofprisoners, FROM
poverty, to pay the ether half Of the ere, they
would be entirely arrested
The power Of pardon, which is attached by tie
constitution, TO offences, generally shsuli not be
eurtailec II is generous prercg ative aad should
be exercised generously. Boni Spdicis 81 aaciiarc
i5trtsGictioacfs This is an old maxim Of the law
But iii, be the duty of coed judge to extend his
Jurisdiction, how much moro true Is i the auty Of
good President to extend the Gcld Of bis ccuency
Al least, small doubt should deter him from the
exercise ofhis prerogativo
The conclusion from this review IS as foilows:
I. BY the English common law, the costs add
one halt Of the Gnes may be reunited II Is not GER
tain that by this law as adopted in tue United
States, The other helf Of the fines may not also be
RENTED.
2 Under the statutes of Maryland, now tho Law
Of the District, tho Governor. and, Of course, the
President, may rc,nt 'ths whole or any part Of any
fne," without exception
3. Under the constitution Of the United States,
and according to its true spirit, the pardoning
power of the President is coextensi7e with the
power TO punish, EXCEPT in the solitary case Of i'm
peaohment.
Several courses are oren TO the President ia the
present case.
ana ssyrs from prison, and remit all the fines and
costs for which they are detained Such pardon
would elfectualy. operate mquostionabiy upon tho
Imprisonment aad upon tie costs, and also to the
half Of tho fines due TO the couuty. II would be
for tae courts proper application and in the exer
else Of ter just powers, &c restrani it, if the pardon
aid net operate upon the other moiety
Among the opinions Of the Attorney General is o
cese which illustrates this point In 1924, one
Joshua Wingcld, prayed for credit, in tie sct:le
ment Of his accounts, for his proportion Of O fno
incurred By orc T. Varney. 1t appeared that sait
YRS instituted b. the petitioner, as Collector Of the
District of Path, Meinc; on which judgment was
obtained il May, 1909; the defendant was arrested
and committed to jeil, under execution on that
Judgment; ard the 6ue afterwards rcmitted hy the
President The petitioner contoaded that the Pre-.
sdent had constitutional c. legal power TO remit
his proportion Of the FIRE, the right 20 which ha
Writ remarks, that It is unnecessary to express IN
opinion upon too correctness Of this pos ton; " he
cause, if il be oorrect the act of remission by tho
President, being vholy inoneTasige as to that por
ton Of the fne claimed BY tic collector, biz le raj
right TO recover il ieraihed in FIJI force, retwilh-