The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-07-15

tbe PROCLAMATION, is wholly untenaple, i
% IL il utterly inconsistent with the op-
;ect and utterly incompatible with the
means. of according the privilege
This oninion is not only lrrecon-
cilable with the principle and pol. !
lev of the measure, but subversive OF |
the obvious design of the proclamation |
and the necessities of the crisis. Inc
desideratum of the Government was
fine suppression of the rebellion by any +
and ali ineans--by the overthrow OF It's
armies. by encouraging assertions from
rebel armies, by converting and neutral
izing all in hostile attitude to the Union.
The design of the proclamation was 10
reach all men in rebellion, for they were
dreaded; not to reach those VINO hau
withdrawn from the rebellion, 1or they
were already harmless or lnsignincant'
The design was, morrow, 10 pe eAecut
cd within hostile limits, by United
states officers. after Union occupation;
for until then nearly all persons within
rebel limits continued hostile. These
and other reasons show that future time
was necessarily in contemplation for the
application. practicability and efficacy
OF the rendered amnesty; in short, the
whole scheme would be nugatory until,
by force of arms, the United States off,
GERS could enter the rebel territory, and
administer the oath, and perform the
other duties incident to the execution of
the proclamation. Accordingly 1t was
applied and administered in different
cities and localities at very different
times: but, nevertheless, with equal va
lidity and efficacy alike obligatory on
the United States and the individual.
Thus construed as valid and operative
on continuous and future offences, the
proclamation of President Lincoln was
u not only the act of q statesman, appro-
pirate to the end.and binding the ma,
, tional faith, but it was q judicious and
efficacious instrument in the suppress
sion of the rebellion. On the other
: hand, if restricted in operation to per-
sons who were no longer hostile, IL
: would be entirely nugatory and idle.
!, THE EFFICACY OF THE PARDoN-A CASE
IN POINT.
Now, in every enlightened and wisely
constructed government, whose acts
! NAV combine the joint authority of the
q Legislative and executive, as did the pro.
clamation, it seems absurd to suppose
that, in the greatest emergency, there Is
q an incapacity or an indisposition to re-
sort to that pacific, humane and effica-
# cLOuS cApColChU VI 6CbSAesA PeSANO.A $500
y amnesty to those who are in, and con-
= tinuing in, dangerous hostility to the
. government. This great power, unfor-
= tunately so often needed, must exist as
4 essential in every government capable OF
y making war and peace. The negation
= of this power is not to be sustained by
implication or anything short of express
constitutional prohibition. And yet the
Y denial of efficacy to such pardons under
President Lincoln's proclamation rests
y on the express or implied absence of this
q essential power in the government of the
e United States.
J. A contracted view of the question
I, may induce some minds to the opinion
le that the President can pardon only for
3 past and completed Offences-Oftences
D prior in date to the pardon. This is
l. rather aspecious technicality than a fair,
8, solid reason. It must be remembered,
e, too; that the proclamation in question
E. derives authority as well from Congress
8, as from the Executive, But on Execu-
"a tive authority alone it will be found,
te on the facts of the case to be considered,
4 that the offence or crime is that OF
4 making war against the United States,
10 in which those most conspicuous OF
II effective were engaged not for day
e, or month only, but fOryears--in which
IL the offence was continuous, not termi.
he mated. In point of time it is unlike
e. many other offences; it is not begun and
l. ended in few minutes or hours. II
as should, therefore, be treated according
Il to its character and nature, as q continu.
n GUS transaction. The injustice and mon.
+ strosity of the opposite view will be fifty
n shown by illustrations. Let it be sup
D. posed that Gen. r. e. Lee, the grea
re military chieftain of the rebellion ,shoult
"a be arraigned on an indictment for trea
J. son, specifying the overt act as waginl
VI war against the United States in thu
ID year of our Lord 1851 that he is triet
e. and Convicted and that he is then par
err doned. Would he be liable afterwards
~ to indictment, trial and conviction, sep
e. arately, for every one OF the battles
s. which, through thee succeeding years, HI
at Surely this would be inadmissible ant
a. monstrous. He may be have been Ions
s. guilty, but his guilt was continuous, no
a, frequent 1t is the same with multi
III tudes of inferior offenders. No enlight
n. ened or liberal mind can entertain tn,
N opinion that man one hundred days il
rebellion is thereby guilty of one hun
a. bred acts of treason, and consequently
AZ liable to a hundred prosecutions TIL
Id common sense of mankind, uninfiu
of enced by passion, revolts at the sugges
re- ton; and law, reposing on sound sense
Is never shocks or Outrages it.
st THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO PAR
it DoN-THE FAITH OF THE NATIo,
IN PLEDGED.
he The constitutional power of the Presi
m dent to grant pardons is, with singl,
r. exception, unlimited. Who, then, shall
I'd assume to impose limitations on this un
n limited power? Clearly, Congress can
n. not invade and restrict this Executive
by prerogative. Can the Judiciary, by de
s, timing it, limit it? 1t is needless to dis
m cuss this latter point; it has not arisen
III and perhaps never will. Clearly, par
of dons are valid before conviction; before
Dr. indictment, and even after punishment
IN inflicted. A pardon Ito many intents
lie may be granted, and valid; to party
lie guilty of no crime; it may rule and ever
Dr. wisely operate to protect from veXatiOus
re prosecutions and expense where the par
he ty is guiltless, as where one Is but sus.
l. pected. Though generally granted tt
ar individuals for specific offences, pardons
" may, nevertheless, be general, as the
he exigencies of nations illustrate, and as
lie the times and acts of your predecessor
le and yourself eminently demonstrate
l. On some subjects las frauds) the law
ID prudently abstains from fixed or in.
a flexible definition. 1t may be more ne.
n cessary that the power of pardon, the
d great and mild instrument of clemency
4 in, ant oh :.