The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1866-12-15
Pardoning Power.


The passage of the act Of Jelly II, 1862,
conlerring on the president the power to par
don for certain offenses alleged to have been
committed against the constitution and laws
Of the United States IS palpable assump-
ton by Congress of q perOgatIve vested by
the constitution IN the executive aloue-an
understandable usurpati0n by the legislative
department Of the government
The clause in which that power IS con-
fcrred upon the President is very explicit,
and its exercise, both before and after CON
victi0n, has never been denied. 1t reads
" lie shall have power to grant rcprieYes and
pardons for Ohenses against the United
states, except IN cases of impeachment
We can see no restriction in that Kent
says " The power Of pardon vested IN the
President is without any limitation, except IN
the simple case of Impeachment" some of
our exchanges, however, appear to think
that the repcal of this act would cOnfne the
President TO pardon after trial and convie-
ton The act protesting to confer this
power reads The President is hereby
authorized, at any time hereafter, by pro
elamation, to extend to persons who may
have participated IN the existing rebellion IN
any state or part thereof, pardon and am
E.nesty with such exceptions, and at such
time, and on such conditions, as he may deem
/ expedient for the public welfare" We pro-
pose to show that this law conferred no new
/ powers on the Presiden5-that it was and is
| nullity, and that its revocation Will not
! take away one iota Of his constitutional
/ right to pardon at any time, whether before
: CT after conviction,
There is not a case on record either In
England or the United States, where the
right 20 exercise this power without limita-
ton Of time, has been denied to the King on
the one part or the President on the other.
The only question analogous to this ever
raised in England was whether the King
could grant pagdon after conviction IN an
Ecclesiastical court; it never was a Ques-
ton as 70 his power to grant pardon before
| conviction. And possibly it Is on these very
grounds that the radicals deny, in the face OF
the plain provision Of the constitution to the
contrary, the presidents undOubted right to
pardon in all cases except,impeachment. No
other exception to its exercise can be found
In this country, and in England, even this
exception does not exist; for the King may
pardon in impeachments as well before as
after conviction. Justice Story, so far from
doubling under the constitution the pro-
priety of its exercise before conviction, com
ments at some length upon the wisdom Of
the provisiOn-never dreaming that the next
generation would produce a set Of rulers who
know neither the founders of our govern
ment nor the constitution thereof
One of the principal reasons assigned by
Justice Story for combining this power to the
executive Instead of the legislative branch oil
the government, is the necessity of prompt
{ action in seasons of instruction and rebel
lion Should this be alone in the hands o.
the Legislative department, its great use, il
critical moments when a well timed offer al
pardon TO the insurgents or rebels, NIGH
restore tranquility, would be of no avail fol-
the dilatOry process of converting the lcgis
lature would allow the opportunity to pass
unimproved.
Hawkins says: q But it is certain mar
may waive the benefit of pardon under the
great seal, as where one who hath such
pardon doth not plead it, but takes the gen
eral issue, after which he shall not resOr
to the pardon" U. 5. 2, Wilson, 7, Peters
1872. How can he waive the pardon that b,
hath not? This undoubtedly implies
power to pardon before conviction. Black
, stone, B. p. 337, says: "a pardon may
be pleaded in bar" 1t must exist before /
can be plead Authorities are too numer
Gus to be quoted. Not an instance to th
contrary occurs No legislative body bu
the congress of the United States would
have had the temeTity to pass auch an &C
directly in the face Of ali law and preceden
and no people but ours would have allowed
it without a solemn protest The pardOnin!
power of the President is analogous to tina
: of the king. Who ever doubted the powe
Y of the English king to pardon in all cases