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

crSIoN ON THE PARpoNING Powas OF TIM rEf 81
DENT, IN TIE GAZE Or xEssEs DaAYroS AND
sAYEs.
by tho laws Of Maryland. 1877. chapter section
4, ID is provided that auy person who rhau steal
any negro or other slave. : OF who shall counsel.
hire, did, abet, or nsnd any person or persona
mont has since been changed 60 imprisonment for
term not loss than seven, nor moro than twenty
years.
Fourteen years later, by the act Of l75l. chapter
II, section 10, it vas provided that . IL any froc
person shall entce and persuade any slave within
this province 70 run away. uad who shall actually
away from the master. owner, or oycrscer, aud
be convicted thereof % confession or verdict OF
Jury upon indictmcus Information; shall for
felt and pay the full value &C such slave to the
ter or of such slave Ia be levied by execution
tho goods, chsttes, lsuds. or tenemonts OF the
offender, and in Of Inability 20 pay the same
shall suffer years impr comment without bail or
manprise.
Still later, by the act 81 1896 chapter 81, section
~, the transporting " ioy slave or person. held
to service" from the State vas made distinct OF.
fence, for which the offender made liable in an
action OF damages, and also by indictment.
~ the act of Congress orss0izing the District Of
Columbia, (Feb. n, 1911 it was declared that
" tho laws Of the State uf Maryland, as they now
exist, shall be, and continue III forcs in that part OF
the sad District, which ceded by that State TO
the United States, anu by them accepted as afore-
said. Under this provision these ancient laws OF
Maryland to this day OF ir force in the District
Of Columbia.
Messrs. Drayton g. Says. on indictment ard
trial, under the acb of 1857, for stealing slaves.
were acquitted; the jury rendering verdict OF
"not guilty" Resort +. - .hen had to the statute
Of 1876, CHI 81, sect 10, as ioIioas.-
XIX. Ana be II epactea 'hs. acy person or persons
who shalI hereafter be convicted Of giving pass {,
any aieve or pereon held to eeevce or Shan be found
assist by advice donation loan herwiso The trans
Iorg 2. any slave or m, person hela TO service rom
mser or owner of be service Of his slave rsrson
held to service oc such offence the party sggcyed
such offender offenders such oGeudcr offenders
also shall be liable, upon indie aud convctioa upon
verdict confession otherwise Ia this State. In any
County Court where such offence shall happen be fined
not exceeding two hundred dollars the discretion
Of the Court one half to th uss Of tho master or owner
OF such slave the other bali the county school In
there DO any such school 20 the Of the county
Under this statute, proceedings we're instituted by
the Attorney for the District Of Columbia, against
these parties, in seventy four different indictments
oacn indictment being founded on the aliedged
transporting" Of q single slave. On conviction,
Drayton was sentenced 90 each indictment to a fnc
in the sum total to sli, SOP 26 On conviction,
Ssyrs WIS sentenced on each indictment to flo Of
500, and COSTS in each case Sl7 IS, amounting in
the sum total to $S6s6 II One half Of tho tines
wss according to the law, the of the masters
or owners Of the slaves transported the other half
30 the county school. or, in there DO no such
school, to the use of the county Afterwards, on
.sprayed in commitment" and committed until the
fine End costs are paid. IN pursuance of this scu-
tenoe, and on this motion, they have been detained
in prison in the city of Washington from April,
to pay these large fines Tho question new arises
as to the power Of the President to pardon them,
at esst es to relieve them from their imprisonment
The peculiar embarrassment in this case arises
from the nature Of the sentence IL il were simply
sentence Of Imprisonment, his pc wer would be UNI
questionable. So also, if il were sentence of i'm
priscnment, with fine snosradded, payable to the
United States, his power would be unquestionable;
nndt ha NINA tanh IN thn a0Sn nfn
fine payable to the United States, with imprison-
mont az tho alternative ncn-payment Of the
fine.
But in the present cass. the Imprisonment is the
alternative for nom payment of fines, which not
payable TO the United Staes but to other parties,
viz the slave owners and the county. II is impor-
fsnt, however, to hear in mind that those Gnos
mere donation to these parties. aud not a compeD-
sation for services rendered Those parties were not
intormors, nor were the proceedings in the nature Of
a qu' tam action.
It should DO distinctly undsrstocd. at the outset,
that the proceedings against Drsy.on and Sayrs wcro
not ut tho suit of any inforor private individual,
but ut the prosecution Of the United states by ia
dictmcns. They are, therefore, removed from the
authority Of the English cases. which protect til =
eh%re &C NJ nformer after judgment from remission,
by harden from the crown
The power of the Presiieot 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
) tates
First AS to the commo1 wv, II may DO doubt
full, whether, according 10 early authorties. til
hardening power cab b. nsod 40 rs to bar or ovest
any loyal interest, benefit, advantage, vested in
private Individual. II j. broadly stated by
English writer's that it cannot be so used, q Haw-
kris, %. G S32 cap. 81, - IL Who's Abridge-
ment 80 Prerogatve OF King IT.. art y. But this
principle does not os sustained by practical
cases in the United State except in the instance.
Of infcrmsrs and qi tam ~ nn. while. on one ecca-
sion, in leading III ksntucky it was rejected.
(Routt rs Flemster, Z, ! Marshall, 1922.
But il is clearly established that, where Cue is
allotted to public body public Office, for
public purpose, it may be remittcd by pardon.
This may be illustrated by several cases.
las when, in Pennsylvania. the fine wa' for
the case Of tho county IL this case, the court
said, Until the money is collected and paid
into the treasury, the constitutional right Of .so
Governor TO pardon the ofelier, aud adult tho fine
or forfeiture, remaius in iuI frce They can have
no moro vested interest ~ the money than the
commonwealth, under tha same circumstances, would
have had and 10 cannot be doubted that, until the
money reaches the trensury the Governor has the
power to remit. In the case az costs. private per-
cons are interested in them hut {, dnos and for
FIXTURES, they are mpossC principles Of public
policy. The latter, therefore, under the exclu-
sive control of the Governor Commonwealth
as. Denniston,9 Watts III The samo point is
also illustrated by N Indiana; Holiday VS..
the people; Gilman. 2It 2l7.
2--As where, in Georgia the fine was to be paid
70 inferior court, for county purposes. Johns IS.
Georgia, ! Kelly, COG. Gl0
3-As where, in South Caroline. tho h9c vas to
be paid to the Commissioner, Of Public Buildings,
for public purposes The ute " simpson. Bai.
Icy, 37S. Or the Gem ,--',a.rs otPublic Reads,
tho State VS.. Williams | Nott ss. McCord, 20 Sec
also Rowe W. State, 2 BAY, 55
According to these au'nnrties. tho portion OK
the fine allotted to the county to the school, may
Q remitted OF this there Gao be no doubt
Secondly Tho statue ot Marylaod, anterior to
tho organization of the District Of Columbia, may
also be regarded as independent of light
this question, these statutes have been
made the law Of the nis5rct. Aud here the con-
clusion seems to be easy
by the constitution of Maryland adopted Itch
August, l116, ;t was dcc'ared--.fhc Governor may
grant reprioves or pardous for any crime except in
such cases where the aw snail otherwise direct
Notwithstanding thcsc strong words &C grant, which
seem to be Us broad the common Law, it was
further declared, as If o. all doubt, by th
L., \ INIT hrE Cox.