The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1866-05-16


AetiO In the HOuse.--The D1SIrun'
Ehlsement General. Tex
In the closing debate on the recon-
struction scheme in the House, Thurs
day, General Banks dissented from the
opinion of Thad. Stevens, that the Ex-
ecutiVe pardon restores Suffrage TO
those disfranchiSed by the amendment.
On this point Gen. Banks said:-
1t is said that the acts of pardon grant
ed in individual cases on the general
charter of amnesty and pardons of the
29th of MAY, change in some measure
the political relation of the public enc
mics to the government itself. 1 do not
think so. a pardon does not confer or
restore political power. A general act
of amnesty differs from an individual
pardon only in the fact thatit applies
TO n class Of offenders who cannot be
individually described. 1t secures i'm
munity from punishment or persecu-
ton by yobliteration of all remembrance
of the offense. But it conterS or re-
stores to no one political power. On
the contrary. the general charter OF
amnesty, even If authorized by Con
gress, as it may be said to have been by
the act of July 1862, contains conditions
and Limitations of purpose which ex-
clude any idea of restoring political
power to public enemies who might be
affected by its provisions. Amnesty
and pardon are granted to all persons
not In the excepted classes. with res
toration of rights of property In cAseS
where legal proceedings had not been
instituted for its contiscatton. SO far
as the charter of amnesty and pardon
is concerned, by its own condition and
terms-by its express terms-all idea of
extending them political privileges or
power is excluded. But, sir, the effect
of a pardon deserves to be n little more
carefully considered. A pardon re-
stores criminal, when pardoned, TO
all the rights that can beconferred upon
him by the authority granting the par
don. That is all. If the President OF
the United States, in addition to the
authority to pardon, had had also the
power to invest those people with poltt-
ical rights, and he expressed it in his
pardon, then they would not only be
free from prosecution but be invested
with political rights, but the President
power of pardon; the power of de-
claring who shall exercise the
franchise is in the first instance
conferred upon the States by the first
article of the constitution, and IN the
second instance by tho provisions con-
ferring the right to Judge of the cleo
ton OF its members on the Congress OF
the United States; and without their
concurrence the President has no right
to invest franchise In anybody. Several
.of the States have, in the exercise of
their undoubted right, DISTINGUISHED
those regarded us public enemies
Congress has refused admission TO per-
sons claiming rights as members. BY
the several acts from 1851 to 1855, it has
declared the inhabitants of the revolted
States to be public enemies. 1tforbade
all commercial intercourse or cores
pondence with them. 1t passed laws
for their puDishmenta as traitors. Until
these acts of the States and the General
Government are repealed by the au-
thorfty OF the States and of Congress,
no person can exercise political power
of his own right, or any other than
delegated power. A pardon, whether
by individual act or by general am
nesty, does not, and cannot change
this condition of things. suppose
this principle to be SO we'll estab-
Iished that it does not require the
citation of authorities to maintain il.
/ venture to say that there is not in the
history of law a single case of pardon
which is held to invest persons with po-
liticnl power in II government or state
other than that controlled by the nu-
thority granting the pardon or TO re-
store other right than exemption from
persecution or punishment. 1t Is a
principle which has at least been re-
cognized by the law department of the
government. Think Attorney General
Gushing gave 1t as his official opinion,
explicitly, that a full pardon cannot be
held to restore political rights. Now it
is said that this disfranchisement can
not be enforced. Why not? Because,
forsooth, the States to be affected will
not accept it. Very well, tits not neces-
sary. There are twenty-five States
represented in this House. Twenty
seven is the number necessary to
amend the Constitution. The States of
Tennessee and Arkansas will accept
this proposition of disfranchisement
without hesitation. They have already
adopted the principle in the organiza-
tion of their own State governments.
It would be impossible otherwise for
the loyal men of Tennessee and Arkan-
sas to maintain governments, and their
consent gives us the requisite number
of States to make the amendment u vi
tai part of the Consultation. ~