The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-11

almost sneering disparagement. When he
afterwards issued his amnesty proclamation,
he rested his right to do so directly and solely
on the Constitution, in the message he at the
same time sent to Congress-. In the procama-
ton itself he alludes to the pretended grant of
authority, but in such way as to show that
he tolerated it only because it was in accord
ance with what was already granted by the
Constitution. His language was, that it Sac
cords with the well-established judicial expo
sition of the pardoning power;' which was
merely different mode of saying that it pre-
tended to confer the same power which the
Conrts had declared belongs to the President
by the Constitution without any legislation.
From all which it appears that Mr.. Linooln's
authority and example were against the doc
trine contended for by the Times. But we
have far higher authority than that of Mr..
Lincoln. Before confuting the Times, we will
allow that journal to present its exposition in
its own language
"iThe most elastic Interpretation OF the power
to pardon conferred by the Constitution does
this morning, The common sense version Of
the constitutional provision limits IT to indi-
vidual cases, and deems it the remission of a
penalty which has been legally pronounced.
Trial, conviction, sentence-all must precede
the Presidents exercise of pardon, which in
! the nature of things contempiates exceptional
crcums lances III mitigation of penalties, and
an individual scrutiny IN Rotation to them.
What has this to do with amnesty? What
warrant does constitutional authority to
remit penalties decreed in course of law, give
for general act of oblivion proclaimed in
advance of trial, and in direct c0ntravention
oflRw?"
1t is here contended that the pardonng
power conferred by the Constitution does not
| authorize the President to issue an amnesty
| at all, nor any pardon previous to trial, CONF
viction, and sentence. That the Constitution
was understood in a totally different sense by
| Its trainers is evident from the exposition and
defense of this part of it in the FederaliSt. If
| the Times will even affect to doubt that the
| FederdLiSt comedies that the Constitution con-
| ters broad amnesty power upon the President
without the concurrence of Congress, and JUS
titles the grant to him to the total exclusion of
the national legislature, we will establish it in
| such manner as to render doubt alb
surd and denial ridiculous. But we see
no use in encumbering our space
with long quotations to prove what
| no candid person capable of understand
ing English will controvert. The opponents
| OF the Constitution, while it was pending
| before the people, objected to the pardoning
| power conferred on the President, that it
| included treason, in pardoning which they
! thought that one or both branches of Congress
J should be associated with the President.
Among the other arguments by which the
! FedeTdlist proved that the Constitution was
! better as 1t stood in conferriDg the pardoning
! power exclusively upon the President, is one
founded on its better adaptation to cases re-
/ curing general amnesty. People may be
curious to know by what wonderful process
the writer in the Times has grown to under
stand the Constitution so much better than
! those who made it.
1t is a matter of undeniable history that
Washington pardoned the Pennsylvania
whisky rebels by general amnesty, without
any Congressional authorization, and previous
to any trial or sentence. Was Washington
usurper OF power which did not belong to
him? Any person who will be at the trouble
to examine the Opinions of the Attorney
Generals will find every part of the Times doc
trine ON the pardoning power fatty con-
tradicted. How could it have happened that
a succession of able and accomplished lawyers,
under no temptation or bias, should have
been so mistaken We make no quotations;
but we will overwhelm with quotations any
body who is rash enough to dispute the cor
rectness of our statement. The most eminent
lawyers who have filled the Office of Attorney
General have been of opinion that the Presi-
dent could, without any Congressional per-
mission, pardon singly or in large groups,
before conviction or after, according to his
sole judgment and discretion.