Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-09-14
EFFECTS OF PARDOas AND AnNEs-
VVEg.


TIES
Whist is the effect Of s pardon or am
nsstvp This question has been judged
nv tbe Washington cabinet, as the re-
movsl Of ell civil disabilities aud the
restoration 10 the smnestied Of al bis
political and civil rights. The Presi-
DENTS last proclamation has been met
by a storm Of clamorous fury from the
Radical press snd by an attempt to
e~masculate It's effect. In view Of this,
Il has become an interesting and imPor-
rant question, and one TO be settled by
the courts.
The English doctrine as 10 the effect
Of s pardon or of an amnesty, in the
shane which the Courts and writers have
caused il to assume, does not consist Of
the logical consequences that flow from
single grear and plain principle. This.
indeed. is the characteristic defect Of
English Law.
BLACKSTONE ssys, "A Comm. 4Ol1
1.-THE effect of such pardon by the king
il 10 make the offender a new man: to
sc1uit him Of al corporal penalties and
forfaimres annexed to that offence for
which he obtains his pardon and not so
much 10 restore his former, as 20 glUs htM
a nsV credit and capacity"
A pardon, he adds, would not restore
or uUrifv the blood after an sttEinder /;
nor could a son, born before the pardon,
be heir TO his father: but q son born after
the pardon could inherit, if he had no
elder brother living, born before the at
tafnder. in which case the land would es-
cheat pro deJectu hGrsdis.
BACON says It seems agreed that par
don Of treason or felony, even after an
attaiuder. 20 far clears the party fromthe
infsmv and all other consequences
thereof, that he may have an action
against any who shall afterward call him
traitor or felon; for the pardon makes
him, as It were, a new man. Bdcon's
AJr. P1r5on lHA Aud to the same
effect Is Hdrkias, b. ., c. 81, Z. IS.
ItLss been said that s pardon takes
away the guilt, IS well as the punish
meut. OF the offence. C~OddiHQtOH q.
wilkins, Hobart, o., 81. Sarkis on
Islander. $50. IN Baum q. Cause, 5 HU
1876. the Court said that this was neither
sound law nor good morals; that pardon
removed the legal infsmy Of the crime,
so that the offender would be a compe-
tent witness, but could not take away
guilt or wash out the moral stain. Con
ssquenUy the Court held that it Is not
~Ectiouable 70 say Of one who had been
p~ardoned for larceny, that he had been
q thief. and that 8 crime, though par
doned, will still 60 to the credit Of a wit
ness.
In The matter Of Deaiag, 10 John.
238, as, the Court said that the limita-
ton % the operation Of a pardon on the
~antecedent right Of q party was, that
it cannot divest any person Of any right
or interest which the law had permitted
TO be acquired and vested, in consequence
Of the Judgment % aud held g psrdOned
convict % be restored 10 his rights and
duties a. q parent, aud entitled 10 the
custody Of his infant children, who had
been placed under the care Of 3 guardian
during his civil death. With that ex-
oeptiou, it was held that a person par
doned was acquitted Of all the penalties
annexed 10 the conviction.
This, as viii be seen, agrees with the
French law, and the exception is found
there, a. well as in the English law, for
both flowed, as TO psrdons and amnes-
ties, from 8 common sOurcel and il is
due 20 the principle Of non-retroactivity
or the non-retrospeetive operation Of
Statutes and executive acts.
In The People q. Pease, 3 John. Cas-.
$50, the Court held that a pardon restored
the party's competency as q witness,
though q clause in & declared that moth
ing mentioned in it was intended 10 re-
lieve him from the legal disabilities
arising from the conviction and sentence.
This clause was held r~epugnsnt, and
treated a. ~suTplusage. That a pardon
restores competency to testify was also
decided in Hoffman q. COstaT, 2 Wharf.
45S, and Perkins q. SeUeas, "A Pick. 277.
All the judges OF England, in the 18th
wear Of ELIZABETH, were asked for an
opinion on The general pardon Of IS
Eyls " a. to the exception Of burglary 10
that pardon. Lord COKE, after giving
the decision, says:
zone Burton, person Of Isbock in Lei
cestershire, was deprived, ammo Y Eliz.,
for adultery committed ammo IL Eliz
And afterwards by the general pardon,
ID April, Il EliZ., the offences OF adul-
terry inter alta were pardOned before the
I4th day OF February, then last past, and
il was said that before the pardon cTi-
men ddUlterd pred. HdHSiUit IL rem
5udtcat., and therefore the sentence re-
mained IN force and 1t was strongly
urged that the sentence should not by
the relation Of the said pardon be made
void. but at the most voidable, and
therefore, until il be reversed by another
sentence, the deprivation stood In force T;
and be who was after his deprivation
admitted, Instituted and indicted,
remained parsOn TIL the first
sentence by another be annulled
but il was answered and re-
solved, that the said Burton who was
deprived, by force Of the said pardon is
now become psrson again, without any
sentence declaring the said deprivation
TO be void for by the pardon, the sdul-
terry, which vas the cause and fOunda-
ton Of the sentence, 10 discharged, and
by consequences all that stands or de-
ponds upon the same foundation, Is also
discharged. And no laohes was in the
parson, or fault in pleading; for at the
time Of the sentence be had not any
matter In discharge, but Il came er pOst
fdct0. by relation Of the general pardon
lord bu is7OTaeHt IA laU, and therefore I
the validity of it shall be discussed by
the judges Of the law, and the party de-
priTed shall not be driven 70 q suit ia the
ECCLESIASTICAL court, to have redress
~le n ls, a