The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-01-15

ton or thing prescribed must be atsainabe, In
theory at least by every one, That which, nom
the nature of things the past condition conduct OF
the party be attained by every citizen does Hot
fall within the definition Of the term To all those by
whom IL unattainabe II is disqualification which ope.
rates perpetual bar 10 the ohce The question In
this is not TO the power OF Congress 70 prescribe
qualifications, but whether that power has been
csed as means for the infection of punishment against
the prohibition of the constitution That this result
cannot be effected indirectly by State under the form
OF creating qualifications, have held in the Of
Cummings vs. the State OF Missouri and the reasoning
upon which that conclusion reached applies equally
TO similar action on tho part of Congress These views
are further strengthened by consideration OF the
elect OF the pardon produced by the petitioner and
the nature OF the pardoning power Of the President
The constitution provides that the President shall have
power 10 grant repreves and padoDs for offences against
the United States except in Of Impeachment The
power thus conferred is unlimited. With the exception
stated extends TO every offence known to the law and
may De exercised at any time after its commission,
either before legal proceedings are taken, or during
their tendency, after conviction and judgment. This
power Of the President Is subject legislative
control Congress neither limit the effect OF his
pardon, exclude from its exercise any class OF
offenders The benign prerogatve OF mercy reposed In
him cannot be fettered by legislative restriction
Such being the case the inquiry arises to the effect
thorities pardon reaches both the punish.
ment prescribed for the offence and the guilt OF
the offender and whom the pardon is full il releases the
punishment and bots out of existence the guilt so that
in The eye OF the law tho offender s innocent as II
he never committed The offence If granted before convc-
ton, prevents any Of the penalties and disabilities
consequent upon conviction from attaching II granted
after conviction ii the penalties and disabli.
ties and restores him to all his civil rights 1t
makes him, as II we're new man, and gives him
a new credit aud capacity. There is only this lmi-
taton to its operation--it does not restore Offices
forfeited property interests vested in others in
consequence of tho conviction and judgment. The
pardon produced by the petitioner is full pardon
FOR all offences by HIM committed arising from parcipa
ton, direct or implied, in the rebellion and is subject 10
certain conditions which haze been complied with. The
effect Of this pardon is to relieve the petitioner from all
penalties and disabilities attached to the offence
mitted by his participation in the rebellion SO far as
that offence Is concerned He is thus placed beyond the
reach OF punishment Of any kind But TO exclude him
by OF that offence from continuing in the enjoy
mont OF a previously acquired right is to enforce
punishment for that offence, notwithstanding the par
don. IL such exclusion be effected by the execu-
ton OF an explanatory OATH covering the offence,
the pardon may be avoided and that accomplished ind
recy which cannot be reached by direct legislation II
Is not within the constitutional power Of Congress thus
to infct punishment beyond the reach Of Executive
clemency From the petitioner, therefore, the oath
required by the act Of January "a 1865, be
acted even were that act not subject any other obec
ton than the just stated II follows from the views
expressed that the prayer OF the petitioner must be
granted The case of X. H. MARI is similar in its main
features to that OF the petitioner and his petition must
be granted and the amendment to the second rule Of
the court which requires the oath prescribed by the
OF January o. 1885, to be taken by attorneys and
scllors, having been unadvsedy adopted, must be re-
scinded and il is so ordered.