Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-09-14

liable.-Ihe Public Prosecutor V. Gadrds-
son, CAssATION, Josrrn. dH Pal, 2 of 1889,
552.
"An amnesty dbOlishes the crimes
and offences which are the object of it
il effaces even the remembrance Of them,
ard leaves nothing 10 subsist Of the con.
victions and sentences pronounced, saw.
ing only such restrictions as are formally
expressed IN this act Ot royal elemency.'
COasidere v. The Public Prosecutor,
CESSATION, JouyN. du Pal, / ofISH,
79S.
"The object of an amnesty is CON-
pletely to effsce the past, that Is TO say,
to Teinstate the amnestied In the same
position which they occupied before the
penalty was incurred from which II
results, that It produces the complete re-
establishment OF the amnestied in the
enjoyment Of the rights which they bad
before conviction, unless these rights
have become the property Of third per
sons, This il q forced restriction, made
necessary by the conservative principle
of uou-retroactivity, and It Is the only
one hat can qualify the amnesty" De
Girardin ". Mayor, DC, CESSATION,
Journ. dH Pal, 2 Of 1850, NOn6rdL,
BQ10t et a., CESSATION, JOiTa. du Pal,
l Of 1852, 90.
This principle Of constituting pardons,
amnesties, and acts of grace literally,
for the honor of the sovereign and the
benefit Of the commonwealth, prevails in
all codes. 1t originally obtained in Eng
land, whose kings were one Of right
kings Of France, and of the proud, fiery
and vet generous Norman race. Fol
everywhere, when a civil war ends, the
great purpose Of wise rulers comes to be
that peace and the old feeling Of unity
and the old good humour should be re-
stored, and the gaping wounds Of the
country healed. 1t is not to England,
under the TUDoRs and PLANTAGENETs
under the cruel, treacherous, knavish,
and cowardly JAMES the First; under
the self-willed, viDdictive ELIZABETH,
Jealous almost to insanity Of her prerogs-
tive, even to control conscienees; under
the first CHARLES, arbitrary and
faithless or under the second,
fearful Of q second great rebel
lion it is not to the Eng
land Of those days, the England of JET
FRIES and SCRoGGs, and the judges who
decided that JAMES the Second had the
dispensing power, that we should natu-
rally look for generous or just law as to
tressons and psrdens; and yet we find
the great lawyer COKE intrepidly apply
ing the identical principles that do so
much honor to France. ItcannOt be too
often or too emphstically repeated, in
what, it is hoped, will be once again 8
united country, that IAN AMNESTY Oh
A PARDON Throws THE vEIL OF OBLIv-
ION OVER ALL THE PAST, EFFACEs THE
OFFENCE, AND MAKES IT AS IF IT HAD
NEVER BEEN COMMITTED Confisca-
ton afterwards pursued, Is robbery, and
would dishonour wen 3 despOt.
Tt Is not, and never was true, that a
pardon does not restore the former ca
pacity Of the party, but gives him a nsw
one, 1t does not make him a HeO man.
The notion OF BLACKSTONE on that sub
ject is but one among a thousand In
stances in which the English law, under
the influence Of arbitrary power and royal
Jealousy Of whatever asssiled its divine
right Of rule and personal sanctity, had
degenersted from the principles drawn
from Norman sources and asserted with
an intrepidity worthy of all admiration
BY Coke, MORE, HALE, Holt, and the
others of the Nobility Of the Bench.
For it is to be remembered that it was
the turbulent Barons Of England, as it
was the great Feudstories of France,
who chiefly caused it to become a cor
ollary Of the royal prerogative, that
treason could never be fully cOndoned.
France, even with only a Charter un-
der a king of the House Of Bourbon or
Orleans, ~reasserts the old law of the Nor
mans as to the plenary effect Of a pardon
OF an amnesty. In England, where the
traditions Of Divine right stilIlinger, the
law babbles upon this subject, as upon
all others that concern the royal prerog-
alive. 1t ought not to be difficult for q
Constitutional Republic to decide by
which set Of presidents it will be gov
erned. If, by the mean of test oaths,
those pardoned after a civil war can be
DISTINGUISHED, and even excluded from
the practice o. their profession, we shall
have adopted the worst and most odious
practices Of the worst Of times; and those
communities that are States in name
will be but Provinces and Pro-Consu-
Iates in fact. To pardon, to for
give, and still 10 punish, is q
contradiction in terms. To pretend to
pardon, snd still to punish, is a baseness
that surpasses the t~rescheries Of JAMES
the First and LOUIS the Eleventh, who
forgave, that they might so dissrm those
amensble to the law, and liable to the
penalties OF treason; and who profted
by the refrigeration Of pardOns. The
villeins and the bourgeois, the peasant
and the Jacques Bon-hommes were little
affected by the storms Of state.
They bowed and the blast blew
over them. They were of too
little consideration to be hated by
Power. 1t was the great dukes, esrls
and bsrons Of England, and the peers of
France, continually at war with the
crown, who were to be cut out, root and
branch, by the law OF High Treason.
The whole ministry of RIcHELIEU was a
war against the great feudsl mobiles,
and an appeal of the monarchy
to the bourgeoisie against them. 1t
was the lords, the DOUGLAS, the CAMP
BELLS, and others, with whom the kings
Of Scotland struggled continually a
OtardHce. In England, the law Of High
Treason brought the heads Of the chiefs
Of all the great houses to the block, the
WARwICKs, the NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
the BOHUNs, the SPENCERs, and the
SOMERsETs; and the Norman laws grad.
ually suecumbed to the royal preroga-
tive, and treason came to be more and
more regarded ass crime against the or
dinances Of Con, instead Of 3 venial Of
fence. The kings became more and
more unfOrgiving, as they more and
more consolidated their power, until
they were almost as relentless as repub-
lies, In which alone cruelty is concen-
trsted into 8 principle, and revenge
into 3 creed.
Thus treason, which at first, and for a
long succession Of years was not, in Eng
land or France, regarded IS dishonourable
or as an act Of guilt, came TO be more
and the effect of q pardon Of it
more limited. When It involved eonfs.
ofimmense estates, ID became de-
sirsble to hold that pardon did not re-
store the party to his former status, or
eGace the offence, but only gave him a
'seU capacity. The condition that the
party pardoned shall not claim by suit
property that has been conhscated. or
its proceeds, Is not a modern invention.
but merely the adoption of formula of
older times, resorted to by kings for the
benefit Of their sdherents and favorites
confscation enriched, as it is snow
enrichiRg q bsser sort Of men, and the
legal mercenaries, the clerks, attorneys,