Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1865-08-24

these three great c0nuuct0rs 70 progress,
prosperity and freedom, would have'no ex.
ercise for theirpowers, and would lie pros.
.trate before universal restitution.
We have no idea, however, that these
statutes will ever be strictly enforced, pro-
.vided tie remedy, sohich has been furnished
is embraced. The Government itself has
provided way by which these penalties
may be remitted, and this confscation of
property prevented. r.
The thirteenth section of the Act,author-
tizes the President, cat any time thereafter
by proclamation to extend to all persons
who may have participated in the then ex.
listing struggle, in any State, or part there
of, pardon. and amnesty with such excep-
tions, and at such times, and upon such
conditions, as hesmay deem, expsdient for
the public welfare. S4.S@is-sf (
:, President, Johnsony under this authority,
on the 29th day of May last, published his
proclamation, declaring amnesty to all who
may have participated, either directly oreby
Implication, in hostility to the eGoyernment,
upon taking the oath, or affirmation, which
was, prescribed therein. He also made
known that they were thereby entitled to
the restoration of all their rights Of prop.
erty except as to slaves, and also except
where legal proceedings under the laws of
the United States had already been institu.
ted for the oonfscarion of such property
He also exempted from the benefits of the
proclamation, certain specified classes. In
reference to those last referred to, he re.
quired that special application should be
made for remission, and declared that such
clemeney would be. literally extended as
may be consistent with the facts of the case
and the peace and dignity of the United
States.
It IS, therefore, plain that the only mode
of preventing the operation of these penal
acts, is for all who are not within the ex-
cepted classes to take this amnesty OATH
There Is no other soay. This can alone be
efectual and sufficient. 1t completely re-
stores the status of the person, and enables
him to secure the possession of his proper
ty, provided proceedings have not beep in
stituted for its confscation before the period
at which the oath was administered, For
those who are included in the exceptions
the way is equally clear. They can only
be relieved by the acceptance of. the same
oath, and in addition thereto by making
through the Provisional Governor special
application forremission. It is the highest
duty and interest of all, and Of the State,
that they should accept and adopt the meth.
cd by which their rights of person, proper
ty, citizenship, suffrage and Office can be
secured. . :.
Tie sneana indicated IN, the Proc9amaa.
,ion Of President JOHNSON can alone
-aOail. The oath. under President LIN
COINS amnesty IS not sufficient. Our reas-
ons for this opinion we reserve for our next
issue.
THE DISTINCTION IN THE EFFICACY OF THE
PRoCLAMATIoNs OF PRESIDENTS LINCOLN
AND JOHNSON. 81. OIL. .-..ra- ~.
Having adverted to the various acts
passed by the United States Congress on
the subject of penalties and confscation,
and the nature of the remedy which has
been provided, we now propose to state
concisely the distinction which existed be-
tween the effects of the two proclamatious
of Presidents Lincoln and johnson, and
the reason why the former is not completely
operative, and a compliance with the terms
of the latter is essential to full restoration
of the rights of person and of property.
They both, it is true, derive their author
ity from the same source. The warrant
for their validity is deduced from the same
grant. The Constitution of the United
States vests in the Executive the power to
bestow reprieVes and pardons for offences
against the United States, except in cases
of impeachment and the corfscation act
itself declares that he is empowered at any
time thereafter by proclamation, to extend
pardon and amnesty to all persons who may
have participated on behalf of the Confed-
crate States in the then existing war, on
such terms and at such periods as he might
deem expedient for the public welfare. The
conveyance of power, therefore, was COM
plete and efficient in both,- There can be
no doubt that whoeserin in good faith accept
ed and complied with the provisions Of Ell.
ther was thereby relieved from the disabili-
ties imposed on person and property, in nc.
eordance, however, only with the extent to
which their terms related. The distinction
is not in relation to their legal character but
their effect. The one was announced on
the 9Th of December, 1858, while civil war
was atits height. The other was published
on the 2sth Of May, 1865, when contend
ing armies no longer stood in "battles mag
nifcently stern array" and when peace with
smiling aspect once more visited the land.
The difference is in this, that the Proc
lamation of President Lincoln had refer
ence only to offences committed up and
prior to the time at which it was officially
made known. Its benefits were confined to
all acts which had been performed during
the war; and previous to the date of its pro.
. mitigation. Its results were not prospect
i've, but retroactive. Itsreference was not
to violations of law which might be perpe.
trated, but those which had already been
committed. He did not proclaim pardon
for that which might or would thereafter