The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-23

PURSUITS; that they 6DOui0 take tner capital out |
ofa former business, TO seek = more profitable |
investment In another. The facility of such II
transfers is one OF the most important condi-
tiOns Of recuperati0n after general wreck. But l
while mans property is liable 10 co1dscatlon |
he cannot sell 1t, because he can give no title.
The consequence of Withholding pardon from |
the wealthy class is that the business of the |
South is kept in a state of stagnstion.
Congress, as 8 means OF extorting submission
to their demands, have determined to wrench
the amnesty power from the President. Even
so moderate member as MIR. RAYMOND is
ready to support them. We cannot suppose
that he is advocating in his paper what he does
not mean TO stand by in Congress. Forewarned
let the President be forearmed. Congress intends
to humiliate him; to undo his work in the
South; to upset the State Governments formed
under his announcement; to keep the South in
poverty and under the harrow of the Cont
tion act. until they can coerce its assent to
degrading conditions. True, the President Will
have not q whit less power to pardon after the
permissiye section is repealed; but as it has
become manifest that his power is to be dis.
puted, il is better that Congress should be
estopped by immediate action.
The cobweb quibbles of the Times against the
pardoning power of the President hardly de-
serve retutation; but since we have pr 1mised
one, we will try TO make it effectual. Hamil-
ton, in the EederGtiSt, defends the Constitution
aea nst the objection that, in cases of treason,
the power of pardon would have been more
appropriately vested in Congress, We cited his
argument on this subject among other proofs
that Congress does not possess the power; Hamil-
toms argument to show achy 1t was withheld
being toerably conclusive proof that it Sods
withheld. Tha Times, as the foundation OF its
quibbles, copies little patch from that number
of the FederdtSi, emitting and emphasizing as
follows:-
''The expediency Of vestng the power of pardon.
ing IN the President, has If mistake not" ne says
in No. "a, "been only contested In relation TO the
CRIME OF treason. Bnt the principal argument
for repOsing the power of pardoning in this
the Chiei Magistrate is this Tin OF insur.
ctlon or rebellion there often critical moments
rebels may restore the tranquility of the Com
monwealth, and which, if suffered to pass unm-
proved, it may never be poss BILE afterwards TO
recall The dilatory process of conVenng the
Legislature any OF it's branches, for the purpose
of obtaining its sanction, would frequently be the
occasion OF letting slip the golden opportunity"
On the basis of the expressions thus italicized,
the Times proceeds to argue that the President
has no power to grant an amnesty except at
critical moments in the progress of a rebellion,
when Congress is not in session Before chew
ing this delicious piece of absurdity, we desire
to remark that the extract disposes of a cavil
that might be raised on the distinction between
pardon and an amnesty, the whole passage
obviously applying to that form of pardon to
which we apply the latter name, and showing
! that the pardon clause in the Constitution
! covers the whole ground. The question raised
by the Times is, whether the President possesses
1t permanently and absolutely, or only at Criti-
cal periods when Congress is not in session.
Hamilton was arguing to show why the Con.
stltutlon withheld 1t, and all participation an
/ Il, from Congress. His whole argument is
directed to that point as the Times must
have seen in culling out its quotation; so that
| 1t Is consciously sophistical. or the, various
| reasons for comforting the power on the Presi-
| dent, the particular one quoted might not
| have required his exclusive possession of it;
| but his exclusive possession OF it in cases of
| treason is what the whole combined argument
! aims to justify. Immediately after the first
! sentence of the Times quotation Hamilton
| states the objection (ior which, and other mat
| tiers it could not meet, the Times substitutes
| in the following language:-"This" (the par
| donlng power in treason), sit has been urged,
| ought to have depended upon the assent OF one
| or both branches of the legislative body"
| This very exclusion of Congress which the
| argument of Hamilton was directed to Justify,
| the ImeS by garbng its quotation, distorts
| his language into denying. Is this honorable
augmentation
But we have even higher authority than
Hamilton, namely, the debates and vote in the
| Federal Convention. When the clause relating
| to pardons was under consideration, Mr.. Ran
| dOlph, OF Virginia, moved to amend by except
| ing leases or treason" After debate in which
| several OF the most eminent members partlci-
| pated, the amendment was lost, only two States
| Virginia and Georgia) voting in It's favor. A
Jew extracts (as well as the vote) will show with
| what resoluteness OF determination the trainers
| OF the Constitution shut out Congress from the
| prerogatiVe OF pardon:-
| Gouverneur Morris "bad rather there should
| be no pardon for treason, than let the power
| devolve on the Legislature
| Mr.. Wilson (praised by Washingto as one of
| the soundest and ablest members of the body,
and afterwards appointed by him as one of the
| Chief Justices of the Supreme Court) said,
Pardon is necessary for cases of treason
and is best placed in the hands Of The Execu-
| tIve.D
Rufus King Thought 1t would be inconsistent
with the cOnstiIu nonal separation of the eXecu-
tive and legislative powers to let the prerogative
| be exercised by the latter. legislative body
is utterly unfit for the purpose. They are gov
| erned TOO much by the passions of the moment
| MnSgnnhnSpftS
| hung all the insurgents in that State; the next
was equally disposed to pardon them ALL"
| It was on such considerations as these that
| the trainers of the Constitution decided to
exclude Congress from all participation IN the
paIdoning and amnesty power. Whether their
| reasoning was sound or unsound, it equally
totally excluded for good reasons or for bad
reasons is nothing to the purpose; it suffces
that. in point Of TACT, they were meant 10 be
and are totally excluded. A ..-.... ...r