The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-02-03
EBOTItYyeII'~ BILL.

The struggle in the United Statss
House Of Representatives over Bout
wells bill making a rule for United
States Courts to exclude from practice
Confederates and others, is over. The
conservatives made a good fight, dis
charged their duty nobly, though
finally defeated 1t passed by vote
of one hundred and nine ayes to for
ty-two nays, all the republicans voting
in the affirmative excepting Hole, of
New York, and McRuer, of California,
who voted with the conservatives in
the negative. This bill declares no
person shall pc permitted to act as an
attorney or counsellor in any court of
the United States who has been guilty
of treason bribery, murder, or other
felony; or who has been engaged in
any rebellion against the government
of the United States: or who has Civ
en- aid, comfort or encouragement to
the enemies of the United States in
armed hostility thereto. The third
section makes it the duty of Judge or
judges of any such court, when the
suggestion is made in open court, that
any person acting as an attorney or
counsellor of said cOprt, "r
proposing to so act, to bar nm by the
provisions of this. act, or whenever
said Judge or judges shall believe that
such person is barred to inquire and
ascertain whether such person has
been guilty of treason bribery, murder,
or other bribery, and upon being con-
WINGED ofhis guilt, exclude such per
son from the office of attorney or coun-
sellor of said court Boutwell, 5 object
WAS of course to destroy the effect of
the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of A. H. Garland of Arkansas.
Butwe think the opinion of this tribu-
nal covered the question so fully, and
laid down the law so clearly and en-
phatically, that the efforts of this pigmy
Congressman certainly cannot pre-
vail We extract from the official
version of the opinion the following
passage in point;
These views are further strengthened by /
a consideration of the effect 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 TO grant rcprieves and I
pardons for offences against the United .
States, except in cases of Impeachment" /
The power thus conferred is unlimited, with
the exception stated; 1t extends to every
offence known to the law, and may be eXer-
cised at any time after its commission,
either before legal proceedings taken, or du-
ring their tendency, or after conviction and
Judgment. This power Of the President is
not subject TO legislative control. Congress
can neither limit the of his pardon nor ex-
clude from its exercise any class Of offenders
The benign prerogative of mercy repoSed in
him cannot be fettered by ans legislative re-
stuctiOn. Such being the case, the enquiry
arises as 10 the effect and operation OF a
pardon On this point all the authorities
concur: a pardon reaches both the punish
meut prescribed for the offence and the guilt
Of the offender, and when the-pardon Is full
1t releases the punishment and blotS out OF
existence his guilt, so thatsinsthe eye OF the
law the uHenNNI Is as AIl0Ntul as II nc mao
never committed the offence, If granted
before conviction, it prevents any of the
PENALTIES and disabilities consequent upon
con victiou from attaching If granted after
conviction It removes the penalties and dis
abilities and restores him TO all his civil
rights 1t makes him rs it were new
man. and gives him new credit and eapaC-
itv There Is only this limitation To its
operation il does not restore offices forfeited,
or property or interests vested in Others in
consequence the conviction and Judgment,
The pardon produced by the petitioner is a
full pardon for all offences by him committed
arising from participation direct or implied
in the rebellion, and is subject TO certain con
ditions which have been complied with The
effect Of this pardon Is to relieve the petition
er from all penalties and disabilities attach
ed the offence committed by his partioipa-
ton in the rebellion. So far as that offence
is concerned he is thus placed beyond the
reach of punishment of every kind: but to
exclude him by reason of that offence from
continuing in the enjoyment of previously
acquired by right is TO enforce punishment
for that offence notwithstanding the par
don If such exclusion can be effected by
the execution Of an exploratory oath cover
ing the offence, the pardon may be avoided.
and that accomplished indirectly which can
not be reached by direct legisl alton. 1t is
not within the constitutional power of Con
gress thus 70 infiiot punishment beyond the
reach of Executive elemeney-
There is no difference in letter or
spirit between the test oath bill which
Mr. Garland took up TO the Supreme
Court, and the malignant measuraPre-
sented by Boutwell,. If the Senate
passes the bill, the President, win re-
turn it with his disapproyal, and if
passed over his veto, the Supreme
Court must declare it nulIity, or per-
mt the Judiciary to be dissolved,
when wewill have a repetition of
france IN the days Of Robeipierre and
Denton.