The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-02

/ method OF attack, we proceed to show that the
disabilities sought TO be inflicted on the South
| as penalties OF rebellion cOntravene the esta-
blished principles of penal justice. The most
essential of these principles is, that parties and
| accuseTs shall not be judges, as the North
| assumes 10 be in Judging and furnishing the
| South. II may be replied that this idea would
| subvert criminal justice altogether as the thief
| might use it as plea against society, which Is
| judge in its own case in sending him to
prison. This reply would be as sophistiCal as it
| IS plausible. Society is not judge in Its own
| case trying and Furnishing thief. 1t makes
| the law declaring the penalty before the THEFT
| Is committed, and when IL cannot be known
| whom the law will affect. 1t appoints public
| prosecutor, but it gives the accused the bene-
| ht of counsel of equal ability tor his defense.
| Instead of allowing the accuser to appoint
| the Jury, they are selected by lot and not
permitted to serve if they have previously
formed an opinion of the case. To these pre-
cautions for preventing society from being a
Judge in its OwD case, Is added the right of the
prisoner TO challenge as many of the iurymen as
he pleases, il he thinks they have bias against
him. To crown all, the trial is under the direc-
ton of judge whose tenure OF Office and mode
of compensation are Intended to render him as
independent and impartial an umpire between
society and criminals on trial, as he is between
plaintiff and defendant In Il civil suit It is only
IN the most despOtic Governments that society Is
Judge in Its own case in the prosecution of
criminals. The whole elaborate machinery of
criminal jurisprudence in ice governments Is
contrived Tor the express purpose of preventing
mans accusers, or any party interested
against him, from being his Judges. The law
which ordains the penalty of his crime must
have been enacted before the crime was COM
mitted, never afterwards because an &c post
1dctO law conlounds judicial and legislative
functions, and makes society judge in its own
case.
It is manifest, then, that the method adopted
by the Republican party tor determining the
penalties OF rebellion is in plain vic alton OF
every established principle of criminal Justice.
Tho laVv lppFppinp fbp npnn1tV 10 pp g1OQf f0nfo.
the chief prosecutor Is made the judge; and the
accused, being excluded from Congress, are not
permitted TO be heard in their own defense. To
be tried under an eC post fdctO law Judged bv the
aCcusers, and denied a hearing in Defense IS a
combination of all the tyranny which it is pos
sible to practise under the forms Of penal Justice
Congress- the 11tbUnemalntains is to be regarded
in the light of q jury engaged in trying the
South for the crime OF rebellion. But when be-
lore did jury ever assume TO direct a change in
the law, and dictate penalty which the law
had not established? This Jury insolenty
presumes to judge the law, and condemn the
over the accused. Or if we consider Congress
in It's proper light OF legislature, instead of
jury, 1t IS itself in daring rebellion against the
Constitution. The Constitution, in positive
terms torblds Congress to pass any er post fdctO
law; that is any law prescribing a different or
ereater punishment for any crime than was in
force at the time it was committed. But the
present Congress not only dehes and violates
this prohibitlOn, but insists on penalty which
is so extremely er post fdcto that the Constitu.
ton itself must be altered before it can be in
tlicted.
The Constitution as it stands and the laws as
they have been enacted provide sufficiently for
the suppression OF a rebellion when 1t is in pro-
gress, and for thefpunishment of traitors after
ITS close. Congress- says the Constitution, may
declare the punishment of treason; Congress
has declared the punishment of treason, and
prescribed the method OF trial. All the partici-
pants in the late Rebellion, or as many Of their
leaders as the Government chose to proceed
against, might have been tried and, if con-
vlcted sentenced to loss of property or to death.
Instead of inficting the legal penalties the
Government has chosen to remit them. Con-
gress intended, or at least authorized this by
inserting in the law a provision thai the Presi-
dent might, by proclamation or otherwise" and
on any conditions he judged proper, absolve the
guilty by amnesty or pardon which carries as
complete an exemption from all future penalties
or molestaton as an acquittal by jury. The
President can neither revoke a pardon once
given, nor can Congress by new laws ordain
other penalties for crime subsequent to its
commission. The Government. therefore, has
exhausted its penal authority in reference TO
the late Rebellion, except in relation TO the
very few unpardoned Rebels.
This abstinence from enforcing the legal pen
altles OF treason is frequently urged in the Re-
publican journals as an argumeet for the fair
ness and prOpriety of the er post fdctO penalties
now sought TO be inflicted. Besides the fatal
objections to this kind of Offset founded on the
tions of the Constitution it is repugnant TO natu-
raj equity in blending the innocent and the
guilty. the same undistinguishing punishment
At least half Of the Southern whites were invei-
ged into the Rebellion by the lies or forced into
it by he threats of the secession leaders, ter all
the agonies and losses they have suffered there
is no fairness in punIshing them further for
crimes not their own-crimes of which they
were not the perpetrators but the victims.
The Constitutional Amendment and the
Suffrage Question.
From the Times.
The Albany Eoeming Journal continues to in
sist that the adoption of the Constitutional
amendment will close the question of recon
struction, and that further conditions of admis-
sion win not be imposed upon the Southern
States. This may be so-we trust it is. But as
it is mainly a matter Of opinion, dependent
upon the future action of Congress, we do not
care to discuss it further. All we have said on
the subject has been that Congress is not pledged,
by any direct action of its own, TO the admls-
SION OF the Southern States upon the adoption
OF the amendment; chat, on the contrary it re-