The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-11-22
The Amnesty POwer-HOw and by Whom
Should ~ be Exercised!


work concerning restoration ended, and should
leave the whole question of amnesty to be dealt
with by Congress. ITO that body" we said the
other day, "of right belongs all further autho-
rity in the premises" Our contemporary OBJ
jeots to this as unsound doctrine, and proceeds
to argue not only that the President may grant
individual pardons or proclaim an amnesty, as
he shall see fit, but that Congress has no claim
to be consulted and no right to act in the mattre.
We are not, as the World appears to think
unmindful of the constitutional provision vest
ing the pardoning power exclusively in the
Executive; though 1t may be doubted whetner
the terms employed cover all the condItions III
which it has been exercised since the suppres-
sion of the Rebellion, or justify the pretenslons
upon which a proclamation OF genera amheSSLy
shall have mower TO grant reprieves and pardons
for Ofenses against the United STATES eXcept III
cases of impeachment" are the words employed
by the authors of the C0n5tltuio55' 5 na'Tn nl t,a
considerations which withheld from Congress
all share in the power OF pardon had reference
10 circumstances identical with those in which
the Presidents action is at present invoked.
But the language OF Hamilton appears to sug-
rest the opposite construction
"Ihe expediency of vesting the power OF pardon.
ing in the President has, II mistake not" he says
in No. "a, "been only contested in relation to the
crime of treason. > But the principal argument
for repOsing the power of pardOnnR in this in
the Chief Magistrate ths:-In seasons of insurrec-
ton or rebe lion there are o1ten critical moments
when well-timed offer OF pardon to the insurgents
or rebels may restore the tranquility of the Com
moDwealth, and which, If suffered to pass unim-
proved, may be possible afterwards to recall.
The diatOry process of coEvemng the Legislature,
one of its branches Ior the purpose of obtaining
ITS sanction, would frequently be the occasion of
letting slip the golden opportunity"
This reasoning admits of but one interpreta-
tiOn. The application of the pardonIng power
TO cases of treason was designed to provide for
contingency which no longer exists. 1t was
intended as authority to employ an amnesty rs
ameans of restoring the authority of the Federal
Government in cases of msurTection or rebel
lion. 1t was designed for use in "critical mo.
ments," when other means of restoring tran
quillity are in jeopardy, and when "the dilatory
process of convening the Legislature" prevents
consultation with that branch of the Govern
ment An offer of amnesty would therefore
have been in order at any time during the con-
tinuance of the Rebellion. Mr.. Lincoln's pro.
clamation of limited amnesty on the 9Th DeCem-
ber 1868, and again on the Goth OF March, 1864,
was strictly in conformity with the purposes
for which authority to pardon was intTusted
to him. The objects aimed at were declared
by himself to have been 'to suppress the in
surrection and to restore the authority OF the
United States,n and ''these alone.r 1t was COM
petent for him to have renewed and enlarged
the offer at the Hampton Roads conference, or
at any period when these objects remained un-
fulfilled. Or il might have been competent for
his successor to proclaim an amnesty during
the brief but critical time which Immediately
followed the cessation of hostilites, when the
restoration of Federal authority might be sup
posed to require every available auxiliary We
submit, however, that when the suppression of
the Rebellion was consummated, and the
authority of the United States re-established
beyond cavil, the only justification of the eXer-
else OF the amnesty power by the President
lapsed. The 'critical moments" contemplated
by Hamilton no longer continued; "the dilatory
process of consulting Congress ceased to be an
available plea for Executive action on an eX-
tended scale, and without regard to the will of
the peoples representatives.
The peculiar circumstances in which President
johnson entered upon the duties Of his office,
and the anxiety OF the country, as far as possi-
bic, to facilitate the return OF friendly feelings
throughout the South, exempted the qualified
proclamation of May 90 1865, from the criticism
which it might otherwise have provoked. There
was a universal disposition to accord to him
support, and to facilitate whatever measures he
might deem essential to his restoration policy.
Besides, the proclamation was a mere reiteIa.
ton of Mr. Lincoln's peace overtures, intended
to reach many who had not availed themselves
Ofthose opportunities of pardon, and at the same
time excluding from the privilege OF pardon
fourteen specifically described classes OF South
ern citizens. Some there are, we know, who
share Mr.. Bolts opinions as to the invalidty of
the pardons granted in pursuance of the special
power reserved by Mr.. johnson under this pro-
clamation. These persons cOntend-and not
without semblance OF common sense-that
the pardoning power in its relation to indIvi-
duals properly applies only after, trial and con-
Viction. "Webster's Dictionary" hardly sustalns
this rendering of the term. At any rate, the
magnanimity displayed by the American people
since the surrender of Lee may be accepted as
an assurance of their indlspostlon to deal
haTshly with individuals, or to scan 200 closely
the cases in which the President has granted
immunity to Rebels.
But there is limit to the condition of things
in which the right of the President to proclaim
an amnesty is conceded, or in which individual
pardOns on account of the Rebellion prior to
trial and onviction-mightbe be properly granted.
And this limit may fairly be held to have been
reached when Congress met last December. The
right OF the Executive to go further in the work
of restoration is at least open TO doubt; the right
to proclaim an amnesty as a condition OF resto
ration terminated equally at the same time
Congress then took cognlZance OF the entire
subject of restoraton-its time, Its manner, II
conditions; the President receding TO the pos
ton of an administrator OF laws which Oonsres
might enact or resolutions which II might con
stitutionaly pass.
AS matters now stand. the amnesty powe
belongs practically and substantially, to Cor
gress. That body may or may not extend
the South the benefits OF an act OF oollyloI
though a general amnesty, including all Rebel
leaders, and followers, is neither eXpedlent NJ
probable. The number of excluded classes ma
be reduced, as compared with the number r
cited In the proclamation of May, 1865; bat u
loyal sentiment OF the nation will, In ol
opinion, demand the imposition of disablltle
at least TO the extent OF exclusion from FEEDER
office, upon the conspicuous promoters al
agents OF the Rebellion. We assume, MOI
over, that there will be no act Of amnest
broad or narrow, except as conditional up
the previous compliance by the South with c.
tain terms. Thus considered it will be q &C
sequence of restoration rather than prelu
it.
RItuaIism and the Church of Englau
From the Tribune.
The question of Parliamentary reform is
a. khof fs on 80;