Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-08-29

man Is 20 De innOccul uutl o
is proven to be guilty to the full benefit
of which the party is entitled. He can
not be required to strengthen i. 1t is
sufficient by itself.
Mr.. Speed quoted, as strongly in his
favor, the case of Cohen Us. Wright, y
California, 225. But that case was
against him, because the oath there held
constitutional was that the party had not
done certain things since the passage Of
the act and the Court admitted that II
the Statute had been retroactive, its con-
stitutlonality would have been doubtful.
The argument Of MIR. Stsnbery, on the
same side, contained nothing new. He
insisted that Congress could require oaths
and additional osths of attorneys prac-
Using in the Federal Courts, and that the
right to practice there might be taken
from persons guilty of rebellion OF trea-
son. Then he went over the thread-bare
argument that the statute imposed no
new penalty, and that the party might
take the osth or not as he pleased, no
one compelling him to take it. He said,
"The oath does not punish him, nor su-
thorize anybody to punish him, nor say
that he has done anything heretofore
that is punishable In the sense Of crime
or delict. He may stay away; no one
can touch him. He may choose to pFac-
tiee In the State Courts; and that is
we'll"
In reply TO this, Reverdy Johnson
quoted a passage from q speech of Lord
Erskine, in regard to the British orders
in council, in which he said that it was
adding insult to injury to say to the
United States that their shipping was
not compelled to come into British
ports, because they might return to
/ America. "Would it be an answer" he
said, "to q market gardener l the
neighborhood of London, IL compelled to
pass a similar gate "-[one at which 9
tax was to be levied on himl-" erected
in every passage to COvent Garden, that
he was by no means compelled to bring
bis greens to market, as he might stay
at home with his family and starve?"
Rebellion or treason, when it assumes
the proportions of revolution and
open war, entails no dishonor on
the parties in case of failure,
1t would have been no crime in
the case Of Washington, If the+Colonies
had been subdued. 1t did not dishonor
the heads Of the great Houses of Eng
land, in the wars Of the Roses. It did
not dishonor Lee and Johnston. Upon
the moment when the civil war ended,
the officers Of the Confederate States
were received as gentlemen and equals
by all officers of the Federal forces, who
were worthy to be called soldiers and
gentlemen. No n of that class of men
regarded them ss criminals. We were
received respectfully as equals, by the
high civil officers Of the Government.
None Of these deemed US dishonored.
If it were required, asa condition to be
complied with before men should have
the right to vote, that they should swear
that they had never been guilty of some
infamous crime, such as forgery or as
~sassinRtion, few lawyers would be found
bold enough to defend the constitution
atty of the law, or shameless enough to
argue it because all would see that to
force a tacit confession Of infamy was
itself an Infamous act. 1t is because
political offences involve neither infamy
nor dishOnOr, that it is not thought infa-
nous to force men to confess them or
perure themselves. That such offences
involve no moral bsseness, it needs no
argument TO prove. No nation gives up
those who commit them, to the power
against which they have offended.
Even Turkey would not surrender Hun
garian Rebels to Austria: nor Eng
land, French Rebels TO Napoleon and
in the United States Irish Rebels have
always found an asylum and been re-
ceiVed with honor. Witness Emmett,
Macneven, Mesgher, Mitchell and Saw
age. And non but fools think, and none
but knaves pretend to think that South
ern Rebels are dishonored or untrust-
worthy men.
The Court, in Garlsnd's case, by Mr..
Justice FIELD, reiterated the conclusions
arrived at in the case of Cummings. It
held that the act of Congress partook Of
the nature Of bills Of pains and penalties,
aud uvag anIHoaF 20 The 0,.ksE-esz-- =.
hibition sgalnst the pssssgs of bills Of
a~ttainder, under which general desigua-
ton, it said, they are included.
It held that an attorney could not be
deprived Of his right to practice in the
Courts, unless by the Judgment of the
Court, for moral or professional delin-
queocy: that the Legislature might
prescribe qualifications for the office,
but could not exercise that power as q
means for the inhiction Of punish
ment.
They also held that the Presidents
power to pardon is not subject to legis-
lstive control that Congress can neither
limit the effect of his pardon, nor ex-
cluds from its exercise any class of of.
feRders that the benign ~prerogative of
mercy repOsed in him cannot be fettered
by any legislative restrictions and that
a pardon " reaches both the punishment
prescribed for the offence, and the guilt
OF the offender and when the pardon is
full, it releases the punishment and blots
out Of existence the guilt, 90 that In the
eye Of the law the offender is az inno-
cent as il he had never committed the
offence. II makes him, as it were. a
new man, and gives him q new credit
and capacity"
They said, OF Garland, "to exclude
him, by reason Of that offence, from con-
tinuing in the enjoyment of a previously
acquired right, is to enforce q punish
ment for that offence, Notwithstanding
the pardon. II such exclusion can be
effected by the exsction of an expurga-
tory oath covering the offence, the par
don may bs avoided, and that accom-
plished indirectly which cannot be
reached by direct legislation. 1t is not
within the constitutional power Of Con-
gress thus TO iDfiict punishment beyond
the reach Of Executive clemency."
or course the Legislature Of q State
cannot prevent a pardon granted by
n