Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-12-20

store the Recipient to all Rights OF
| @. .CitTzenshiP l-ArgumonIs = Pro. and 4
ECOn-7The Debate % be Re5umed on
| ~ "'-.e"-p - zz-gIruq B77)Us7 fH
on IWAsHINdroN, Dec. "15.-The United
States Supreme Court room was crowded 4
to-day by lawyers from various parts of
the country, to hear the argument on the +.
question as to whether q pardon by the,
President restores the recipient 70 all the
rights of citizenship which he enjoyed
previous to the rebellion. sIiunui ot 9asi
Matthew H.. Carpenter, Of Wisconsin,
said he had been applied TO by A. III. Car =
! land, Of Arkansas, TO submit rnoti0h 10
the court and to ask for its consideration u
He stated that he resided in an extreme
/ Northwestern State, and had favored all
THE measures to suppress the rebellion, but
/ now was prepared TO extend the right-hand
| of fellowship to his RECONSTRUCTED brother;
and as our flag floats from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, after four years OF stern civil
| war, this Is the time TO fix deep and strong
| the landmarks of constitutional law. The
peculiar case of the petition of Mr.. Gar
land, as well as that OF Mr.. Mari, of Louisi-
ana, grows out OF the late rebellion, In
| which he took a part. He has submitted
himself to the authority of the Goyernmenti
and, for rea-onsheld blythe President to be
entirely sufficiept he has been granted a
full pardon. He asks to be readmitted as
counsellor at this bar, but is met in this en-
deavor by the act of Congress passed in
1865. This law requires attorneys to take
an oath that.they have not participated will
fully in the rebellion, and to render alleg-
lance and obedience TO the Government.
This act is complete bar tothe petitioners
rights. II it violates the spirit of the Con-
stitutOn it is void. This court has held
| that any legislation is void which imposes
burdens, and renders rights valueless which
are secured by the Constitution. The
members of this court, for instance, hold
Office for life, or during good behavior, and
therefore it would not be competent for
Congress to provide that they should not
preside beyond a certain age. Take the
case of assault and battery. 1t is punished
by fine, but is not followed by civil dis
qualification. Suppose an attorney conf
| nitted an assault and battery, and is fined,
and suppose that Congress had passed alaw
requiring him to swear that he had never
committed the offense, would not that be
unconstitutional? What is the result OF
the law of which complaint ismade? FIRST,
considering the petitioner Is guilty OF trea-
son, he might have been punished with
death, but the President has fully pardoned
/ him. and the effect of this is to restore him
to his rights, civil and political, and the
holding of office as fully as if he had never
committed the offense. Engaging in the
rebellion subjected him to forfeiture, but
the pardon restored him to his rights yet
the act of Congress fixes perpetual bar to
his holding office, and it is in direct OPP
position to the pardon. The President said
by his pardon, 'you shall not be precluded
from practicing in the Supreme Court" but
by the act of Congress he is disqualified.
The President is trying to pardon and the
Congress to punIsh-the former is wiped
out by the latter. The President may
pardon for all offenses; and this eonstruc-
tion is sustained blythe Federalist and other
authorities, including former justices of
this Supreme Court. The language in the
Constitution giving the President the pow
er TO grant reprieves and pardons, must be
construed accoring to the sense the power
r was understood in England at the time of
1.-THE adoption OF that instrument. The Con-
I stitiutiOn is the same to-day as 1t was at
the perioditw ratified Those who stood
by the President in the exercise of doubt
fill power in war should see that the Con-
stitution be not shOrn of its power in peace.
. The gentleman referred to the annals OF
England to show what is meant by pardon,
and said it discharges not only the punish
|. lnent, but also the guiltOf the offense itself
In the eye of the law, the person is as in
> nocent as If he had never committed the
, offense: in other words, it makes him new
man. The pardon will enable him to PROS
: ecute for libel any one who may call him a
. traitor or felOn. 1t regenerates and re-
news him, and to call him traitor is to
: violate the Constitution of England and to
. deny the power of the King to make him q
new man. This Supreme Court has similar
ly decided, and the President has exercised
. the power in behalf of the petitioner, so AZ
: to make it impossible to inhiet any punish
. ment upon him for the crime OF treason
!. But the act OF Congress does tliet punish.
!. j ment, as it excludes him from office. Thi!
. is the effect of the lawI because, having
Q committed the offense specified, he cannO
swear he never has, which absolutely dis
D qualities him from holding civil Office, anC
a this is apunishment. An American either
who thinks he can obtain an Office, believes
. that all other things will be given unto him
3 When the war ceased, the Constitution re
! sumed its sway over those parts of th'
. country where its operations had beer
|. suspended. ig7N 200 @ 10 29Ynga r9eIG q
01l The learned gentleman cited various au
b1l thorities to show that disqualifcations ar
g. Il punishments, and could be visited only OF
persons who have been found guilty o
TX offenses on due process of law. The Presi
q dentsays to the petitioner,"I pardon you
n land you shall not be disqualified in conse
: quence of any treason you have commit
ted;o but Congress says to him, "Yol
" shall not practice in the courts unless yol
\ take an oath you never committed TIL
| offeIise, and If you swear falsely you shal
: be punished.p srH i.'ad71 N g.yigi aa
ed When pardon is granted the recipien
A, cannot be deprived of the restoration o
his rights, because it is In effect forbidden
:. by the Constitution of the United States.
atl Chief Justice Marshall says we must re
a. gard the act of pardon as it s9undefsboot
In England. sIf Congress, In opposition b
Il i the power of pardon, should he permitte,
- to prescribe oaths for those who receive th
4 Executive olemency,p where is the limit
h, They might, evenif we should have q cor
= rupt body, require an oath as o. qualiflea
y ton for Office, that the recipients had neve
A voted for oragainsta particular candidate
and thus perpetuate tkeir powegIiIlTh
right of the petitioner TO exercise his Iofiic
> is a species Of property. 1t is tolbeloonsid
oh cred as any other right Norman can,dln
4 der the Constitutions be deprived Of hi
!. rights until he isheard according torth
- forms of law The authorities siistainth
z petitioner. that he has a right In this court
a0I Of which.he cans be Invested only bydu
n process.q The lawof Congress finds an ex
III cuse in the truth that itowas q war acts-
ry1 When upitMasd passed our sons were falling
oal on many battleafelds; mothers and friend
al were weepiRgat open Graves, and the pub
ai lie heart was stuhg TO madness andreyenge