Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-27
gEMPnIS APPEAL
VALIDITY OF THE rsOOrAHAT1opS o.

VALIDITY OF THE PROCLAMATIOE
OF AMEEsTT. III a
Because Congress has seen fit to repeal
the act by which'a preceding Congress
had undertaken to conferupon President
LINCOLN a power which he already pos
sessed under the Constitution, and OF
which Congress could not have deprived
him, some men, with more ingenuity
than ingehuousness, insist that President
JOHNSON had not the power to issue his
late proclamation of general pardon
with specified exceptions. Not content
with 50 arguing, they Of course resort to
vituperation. vi But certainly they know
that on the Sl6 Of December, AID. 1853,
a proclamation Of amnesty t0as isSaed
6y President LINCOLN, commencing IA
this 8ise u HIs8 s174c.- -a"
PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY.
Whereas, in and ty the Constitution
Of the United States, il is provided that
the President shall have pOIOer to grant
reprieves and pardons for offences
against the United States, except in cases
OF impeachment; " and whereas rebel
lion now exists whereby the loyal State
governments Of several States have for a
long time been subveTted, and many
persons have committed and are now
guilty Of treason against the United
States; and whereas, with reference to
said rebellion and treason, laws have
been enacted by Congress declaring for
FIXTURES and confiscatiOn of property and
liberation OF slaves, all upon terms and
conditions therein stated, and also declar-
ing that the President was thereby au-
thorized at any time thereafter, by pro-
clamatiOn, to extend TO persons who may
have participated in the existing rebel
lion, in any State or part thereof, pardon
and amnesty, with such exceptions and
at such times and on such conditions as
he may deem expedient for the public
welfare; and whereas the Congressional
deelsratiOn1 for limited and conditional
pardon acc6rtis with well established ju-
diciRl Exposition of the pardOning power;
and whereas, with reference to said rebel
lion, the President Of the United States
has issued several proclsmations, with
provisions in regard to the liberation Of
slaves and whereas it is now desired by
some persons heretofore engaged in said
rebellion to resume their allegiance to
the United States, and to inaugurate |
loyal State governments within and for |
their respective States; E-l. Il.
Therefore, l, Abraham Lincoln, Presi- !
dent Ofthe United States, do proclaim, |
declare and make known to all persons |
who have directly, or by implication, !
participated in the existing rebellion, |
except as hereinafter excepted, that q fiH |
pardon is hereby granted to them aud |
each ofthenl, uCith restOTdti0Hof all rights |
Of property, except as to slaves, and in |
property cases where rights OF third par |
ties shall have interviewed, and upon the |
condition that every such person shall |
take and prescribe an oath, and thence |
for ward keep and maintain said oath in |
violate and which oath shall be regis |
tered for permanent preservation.
This proclamation was direct and |
explicit protest on the part of President
LINCOLN against the assumption by |
Of a right to confer on him the
power to grant pardons and smnesties,
and an explicit assertion of his right, in
the absence ,of any act Of Congress, to
grant either, under the Constitution.
It is said that there is an essential diff
ference between a pardon and an am
nesty, for which the only reference made
is to BoUvIER's Law Dictionary, which
it is not ve7y customary to quote as an
autho rity. The paragraphs quoted from
it Sre as follows
Amnesty aud pardon are very differ
ent. The former ls an act Of the sOver-
eign power, the object of which is to /
M n n ha far1
crime or misdemeanor; the latter Is an /
act Of the same authority, tDltich eTeBlpts /
he indiUidudl on IChOR 10 Is bestOlUed /
from the punishment the lG1U iRficts for /
he crime he has committed. Z Peters /
l60. Amnesty is the abolition and for
getfulness Of the offence; pardon is for
yiveness. A pardon is given to one who
L certainly guilty or has been convicted; !
amnesty TO those who may have been
sop
All Of the previous paragraph which
comes from the ecisien Of the Supreme
Court of the United States in : Peters,
we have printed in Italics. The Court
did not, in that case, discuss the differ
snce between a pardon and an amnesty. |
was no such question in the case.
For all notin italics, BoUv1ER gives no
He continues to say, without citing |
any authority: -E - .-. -t-
"Their effects are also different. That |
Of pardon is the remission Of the whole |
OF a part Of the punishment awarded by |
the law the conviction remaining un- |
affected when only partial pardon is 4
granted: an amnesty, on the contrary, |
has the effect Of destroying the criminal /
act, so that it is as if it had not been |
as far as tue further interests |
are concerned"
There is no such distinction. A pardon,
As we have heretofore shown in the AP-
PEAL, has precisely the effect here de-
MED TO it and assigned to an amnesty.
Their Gppliodfioa also differs. Par
don Is always given to individuals, and /
only after Judgment or convic-
lion: amnesty may be granted either /
before judgment OF afterwards" There |
is no such distinction ! ''and il is in |
general given 10 whole classes Of crimi-
mails or supposed criminals, for the pur-
pose ofrestoring tranquility in the State"
That is really the whole difference.
An amnesty is simply the pardon OF q
class or number Of people, and not Of an
OF individuals by name.
Under the head Of PARDON, he says
"Pardons are general or special. The
former are express, when an act of the 1
Legislature is passed, expressly directing
that offences of a certain class shall be /
as in the case Of an act of am
1esty. ID. Special pardons are those
which are granted by the pardoning
power for particular cases.n
That is SO far true, that an act or
of amnesty is a general
pardon And under the Constitution, the
President possesses all the psrdoning
power and those whom he can pardon
by name, he can pardon by general
nrocI . m 1stiOO without naming them