Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1866-12-20
THE PRESIDENTS POWER To
GRANT An AMNESTY.

H
thorizes the President to grant amnesty
to persons who have been engaged in re-
bellion against the United States on such
conditions a. he NAV deem cxpedicnt for
the public welfare ln bis 5 eeeh ontais
rroposition on The 18th inst Alf rIum-
bail, Of Illinois, stated chat the Impression
common in this country, that the bill to
repeal the thirteenta section Of the an
nesty law took AWAY the power of the
President to grant pardons was CHROME
Gus. and he sustaiaed bis position by
citing number Of English as well as
American authorities, Nor, in bis
opinion, would the repeal of this section
effect the President power q restore
property where the rights Of third par
ties had not INTERVIEWED Mr. Trumbull
cited the opinion of Attorney General
Writ that the pardon contemplated in
the constitution was ofthe oA'ense and not
Of the conviction the conviction being
merely evidence Of the crime There
is little doubt that the original
intention was to deprive the Presi-
dent Of the power to pardon those
engaged in the rebellion, but an in
yestigation of the subject demonstrated
the fact, that Congress could neither add
to nor take from this constitutional pre-
rOgatiye Of the President, and now Mr.
Trumbull says the object is to take from
him the power to issue a general amnesty,
which is authorized in the act OF July Il,
1862. But even in this the Radicals may
find themselves checkmated. The emf
neIit jurists fancy and Cushing have
held the power to be unquestionable, to
be exercised either before or after con
viction, and to be either absolute or con
ditional. Judge Berrien, in % Opinions
Of Attorneys General (page 3sO,) says;
''The powerto pardon is eo-extensive with
the power to punish, exceptin cases Of i'm
peachments and contempts. 1t is genera
and unqualified it may be exercised as
well before as after trial, and it extends
alike to the highest and the smallest often
SEES" But that highest expouuder or the
constitution, the Supreme Court Of the
United States, has set at rest the whole
subject no longer ago than 1850, in the
ease Of Wells, as IIowards Reports,
D. 3lO,) using, by the mouth Of Judge
Wayne, this language
" Pardons are general, special, or par
ticnlar, absolute, statutory not necessary
in some cases, in others grantable, of course. |
We might mention the legal incidents Of
pardon, but those mentioned are enough to
illustrate the subject of pardon and the ex-
tent and meaning Of the Presidents power
TO grant reprieves and pardons. Ii meant |
that the power was to be used according to |
law; that is, as il had been used in Eng
land and in these States when they were
colonies, not because il was a prerogatiye |
power but as incidents 10 the power Of par |
don. Without such power |
of clemency to be exercised by some de- |
partment or funetionary of a government, |
Il would be most imperfect and deficient in |
its political morality, and in that attribute |
of Deity whose judgments are always tenn 4
pered with mercw And it was with the |
fullest knowledge of the law on the subject !
of pardons, and the philosophy of govern |
ment in ils bearing upon the constitution, |
when this 'court instructed Chief Justice |
Marshall 10 say in United States vs.. Viii |
son, : Peters, lG2 As the power has been |
exercised from time immemorial BY the |
Executive of that nation whose language is
our language and 10 whose political insti- !
tutions ours bear a close resemblance, We |
adopt their principles respecting the opera
tons and effect of q pardon, and look into
their books for the rules prescribing the
manner in which il IS 10 be used, by the
person who would avail himself Of it,
And further on, Judge Wayne says
where the words to grant pardons' were
used in the constitution, they conveyed 20
the mind the authority exercised by the
English crown, or its representatives, in
these colonies. At that time both English
men and Americans attached the same
meaning to the word pardon. In the con
yentiou which framed the constitution, the !
appeal was made to define or change its
meaning, although il was limited in cases
of impeachment. We must then, give the
words the same meaning rs prevailed here
and in England at the time it found a place
in the constitution
five are to look into the books Of the
English government for the rules pre-
scribing the manner in which the par.
doning power is to be used, as declared by |
the Supreme Court we viii find ample
there conferred upon the Exc,
eutiye of that government to grant gen
6ral amnesty for political olenses, Ac-
cording to this opinion Of the Supreme
Court the constitution confers upon the
President the very power of which it is
sought to deprive him by a repeal Of the
thirteenth section of the act of July ~,
1862 Mr.. johnson, of Maryland, in the
debate in the Senate, referred to the ex>
ercise Of the pardoning power 10y General
in granting amnesty to those
engaged in the celebrated whisky inslIr.
rection in Pennsylvania, and that the au-
thority he thus exercised had never been
questioned. This noted instance Of a
general amnesty under authority of our
is in conformity with the
spirit Of the decision Of the supreme
Court to which we have referred If
General Washington could legally grant
an amnesty, general in its character and
operations, to those engaged in insurrec,
ton against the authority Of the United /
States, President johnson can certainly
exercise like power even should the
thirteenth section Of the act Of 1869 be
repealed
IMPEACHMENT.
Up to the 18th inst thirteen petitinns
for the impeachment ofthe President have
been presented to Congress. These were
signed by only a few hundred persons,