The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-01-22

The application OF those parties who
Introduce in evidence, q certificate of
special pardon, granted by the Presi-
dent OF the United States, and recitiuR
that 1t was granted for the remission of
Treason against the United States, by
completely In the late rebellion, pre-
sents stale of facts which compels me
to the following conclusions, namely:
the pardoning power of the President
is confined to offences against the uni
ted states, as he represents that govern
ment alone. Nor does he attempt to 90
beyond this limit. The Legislature of
this State has not been blind to the fact,
eLteIIt, and aim OF the rebellion: its pur-
pose was to destroy the Union, and sub
vert the government of this State.
Whether the crime of the rebellion Was
compound treason against the general
government, and each OF the State gov
ernments, Is question not necessary
to be here determined. p's @
lhe cerlhcate SO produced Is an ad-
mission that the party was guilty of
the ouehces pardoned. These parties
stand therefore rs exempted from the
penalties of treason by them commit
ted against the United States; and IL liz
not necessary 10 say whether they ara
still amenable to this Slate for the same
act so far AS IL was AN offence against
the laws of this State-because neither
the oath IN question, nor tho
consequent deprivations resulting
to the party who is unable
to take 1t, is in the nature of a penalty
for any offence, whether pardoued or
uDpardoned, therefore the question is
not affected 10y conceding that they are
exempt from the penalties in both cases.
Although pardon of the executive may
work a complete oblivion OF the past"
so that the crime pardoned, by fiction
of law has legal existence, yet II il
Historically true, nevertheless, and the
parties stand by their moral turpitude
OF the crime. They have not the ''hon-
est demeRnor," the personal virtue, re-
quired by the Code. (Sec, L. Chap. l64.)
This is conclusive ofuntitness 10 prac-
tice at the bar of this court. The evil
dence is volunteered by the applicants,
and in my Judgment, the court has no
alternative but 10 exclude them.
The law on the point is clear. ., Pc
tersdorf, 525, Frost's case; , Petersdorf,
COZ, Browuell's case; Chitty's crimi-
nal law, Sll; COwper SO, 6 East l26-lIS;
Burrows 2l09, Berry's case; 2 Smith
205, .Southerton's case; l Chitty's Re-
ports 55S; l Chitty's DDS, Smith Is.
Trumpee; Leigh 624, Fishers case.
This motion, as is well known, was
argued Rt the last term of this court
when it was insisted that similar mo-
uons were then pending before the SUI
preme Court of the United States, and
that the opinion OF the Supreme Judges
although not authoritatiyely an
nounced, was in accordance with the
principles contended for by the appli-
cants in this case. In view of the Inn
portance of the questions involved. and
in hopes OF deriving additional light
from that decision, this case has been
held under consideration since the last
termof this court. Since the foregoing
opinion was prepared, we have been
furnished with IA newspaper abstract of
the decision rendered by the Supreme
the opinion OF its four dissenting
judges. After a careful examination
of that decision as furnished, am con-
strained TO adhere to the opinion al
ready advanced.