Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-07-11
GENERAL BUT NOT GENEROUS AM.
KESTK.


The President, with the singular fac
ulty that he possesses of doing things by
halves, has proclaimed Whist he calls 8
General Amnesty. The essential part OF
( it is in these words:
/ Now, therefore, be it known that I,
/ Andrew johnson, President OF the Uni
/ ted States, do, by virtue Of the Constitu-
| ton and in the name Of the people OF
/ the United States, hereby proclaim and
( declare, unconditionally and without
/ reservation, to sill and to every person
! Who directly and indirectly participated
in the late instruction or rebellion, ex-
cepting such person or persons as may be
under preseDtment or Indictment in any
Court of the United States having COM
petent Jurisdiction, upon charge of
treason or other felony, q full pardon and
amnesty for the ofense Of treason against
the United States, or Of adhering to their
suemies during the late civil war, with
restoration of all right OF property ex-
cent slaves, and except also as to any
property OF which any person may have
been legally Invested under the laws of
the United States.
From beginning to end, the Presidents
course in exercising the psrdoning power
has been timId, feeble and unjust. There
was no reason or sense at the beginning,
in excepting persons whose taxable
property was worth more than twenty
thousand dollars. Nothing made Ma
ior- General less worthy Of pardon than
Brigadier or q Colonel. Those who
were specially pardoned among the first
Of whom was a member of the OCnfede-
rate Congress from Kentucky had no
greater claims to pardon and grace, than
others not fortunate enough to have
their pardons solicited by Radicals.
The President grants pardons grudg-
ingly, and has heretofore in most cases
used the power TO make favor with Rad
icals by Fastening to respond to their
recommendations. Now he excerpts all
persons under presentmeRt or indiet-
ment in any Court Of the United States,
upon 8 charge Of treason or other felony.
How does that make it less polite to
pardon them? L. General Lee less wor-
thy to be psrdoned, or General Johnston
or BsaHEegsrd, than others who were
pardoned long sgo2 Ia some States in
dictments were found, in others not.
Many are pending in Virginia, and there
In other States there are none at all.
sgere two hundred or more. We are
under indictment yet: So is General
Hindmsn. SO ls General Lee, Mr..
Hunter, and so are souae hgndreds
besides, not long ago, in Arkansas.
Why should Howell Cobb, for example,
have the benefit of the amnesty now
proclaimed, because he has been so for
tunate as not to be indicted, end MI.
Hunter be excluded because Underwood
had him indicted in his Court? Why,
indeed, should indictment make it any
the less polite and wise to pardon the
party? 1t certainly does not take from
him the power.
Moreover, one cannot help asking why
the President did not take this step when
there was very great doubt, to say the
least, whether he would not be convicted
and deposed. Why did he run the risk
Of leaving the best men Of the South to
the tender mercies Of blssphemoua Ben.
Wade? II he supposes that he can con,
ciliate or mollIfy Radicalism by leaving
it victims for the sacrifice, he is wofully
mistaken. Every such concession is re-
garded by it as q confession Ct weakness
and fear; and such it is.