Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1865-12-28
EFFECT OF 4 PRESIDENTIAL PAR.
DON.
Argument Before the. Supreme Court
Yesterday, i'm the Case Of A. HI. Gar
land, of Acknowledgment of the
Hon. ReVerdy johnson.
WASHINGTON, FRIDAY. Dec % Is

WASHINGTON, Friday, Dec q. 1865.
The case of A. II. Garland, of Arkansas,
came up before the United States Supreme
Court to-day, and the Hon. Reverdy John
son delivered an argument of which the fol-
lowing is an extract:
"There being no antecedent government
to our own, it is necessary TO look into the
Constitution itself to see what powers were
originally conferred upon Congress. These
being stated, Congress is authorized to pass
all necessary and proper laws to carry them
into effect These powers are to be so con-
strued as TO effect the object they are design
ed to accomplish. 1t is the duty of the
Court to ascertain what this is and then de-
termine whether the legislation will defeat
or secure this end. A restriction to the class
of powers is that Congress shall pass
no ex-post-facto law or bill of attainder.
The meaning of this is well understood to
be that any law which makes an act crime
which was not a crime when the act was
committed, is null and void. But the law
of 1865 does punish in point of fact, be-
cause it precludes the petitioner from the
exercise of lawful occupation, and strikes
at profession in which his hopes and ambi-
ton, and support of himself and family, are
involved The punishment is severe, cruel,
and unexampled. 1t subjects him to all the
obligations of the Constitution, while it takes
from him all its advantages. The original
act of 1862 was not made applicable to at
torneys in the courts of the United States
Three years were suffered to elapse, when
some one in Congress, who may have been
peculiarly sensitive, and who saw danger in
every man who had taken part in the rebel
lion, introduced a bill applying the provi-
sions of the law TO practicing attorneys. The
bill was submitted to the Judiciary Commit
tee of the Senate, and, by a unanimous vote,
was rejected. 1t afterwards, however re-
ceived the sanction Of the Senate. 1t was
passed for the purpose of excluding the pc
titioner and all others similarly situated, to
punish by excluding them from the United
States Courts. 1t was not for conduct subse-
quent, but antecedent to the passage of the
statute This act comes within the clear
meaning of the clause in the Constitution
that Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law
or bill of attainder.
No rights can be taken away by law
unless the accused shall be first convicted of
the offense charged, and these rights include
the holding of office of emolument and trust
The Attorney General had argued last Fri
day that the admission to practice in the
courts is not a natural right, but is created
by law, and therefore may be regulated by
law, and either given or taken away. But
it is not true that Congress can by law pro-
hibit the appearance of counselors in the
courts of the United States. The Constitu-
ton provides that parties charged with
crime shall have the benefit of counsel, and
therefore Congress has no jurisdiction over
that subject. 1t is true that overy court is
vested by the common law with power to
make regulations to exclude improper
officers, but Congress has no right to say
who shall, or who shall not, appear as
counsel The obligation which is imposed
on Congress to create courts carries with it an
obligation on the part of the courts, to admit
counsel. The safety of thecitizens depends on
the existence of the provision for the admis-
sion of counsel. The preservation of liberty
demands, as illustrated by the history of the
world that there should be such a body of
men, In all revolutionary struggles and
despotisms which have disgraced the world
the accused have been denied counsel
Congress would convert itself into tyranny.
if, while establishing courts, it would ex-
clude such class of men, The act of Con-
gress, under review, compels man TO swear
against himself, while no power is given to
the court to inquire into the facts. No man,
by the Constitution, is compelled to testify
against himself
The petitioner, with others, was involved |
in the effort to establish their separate indie |
pendence of the authority of the United |
States, and resisted it by levying war. The |
punishment for treason, anterior to the pas
sage of the act of 1865, was death or i'm |
prisoment but this act imposes an additional |
penalty, that persons thus accused shall not |
be admitted as attorneys in the United States
Courts. Congress in 1862, passed a law say
ing, whenever the President deemed proper
he might declare a general amnesty, while
the Constitution confers upon him the exclu-
sive power of granting pardons and reprieves.
The pardon places the receipt of it in
the position he stood before the commission
of the crimeS makes him a new man and
livests him of all antecedent consequences.
Suppose this law of 1865 had been made
part of the act for the punishment of treason,
and the man committing the crime had been
pardoned, would it not also have exempted
him from the punishment for the ofiense,
md prevented him from being excluded
rom practicing as an attorney in the United
States Courts? The pardon covers every
part of the ofense, and Congress cannot,
after the pardon has been granted, pass
aw to punish for the offense pardoned
The disgraceful fact is presented to the
world that Congress undertakes to interfere
~ denying the power of pardon as confer
ed by the Constitution exclusively on the
President without limit. Congress cannot
ay to the petitioner, you shall be tried for
reason, after having being pardoned. If this
If all Others
Mr.. johnson quoted from various judicial
opinions to fortify the points of argument by
him presented.
The Court holds the matter under advise
nent, and has adjourned until Tuesday next.