The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-18
TIE AMNESTY.
ohnsOD's Proclamation of Pardon TO
the Rebels.

the Rebels.
IHR JUDICIARY COMMITTEES of the Senate to
~ N was referred the message of the President of
Ene United States, communicating, in compliance
Nth the resolution of the Senate, a copy Of the
Rroclamaton of the President, December 20, 1868,
Rurporung TO extend pardon and amnesty to a class
persons guilty of treason, &c, respectfully re-
IT purports, by the will of the Executive alone,
Enuependent and supposedly in spite OF the law
Inakxng power, to grant, by general proclamation,
iuil pardon and amnesty" to all persons engaged
the late rebellion-to all traitoTs-with restora-
on OF all rights, privileges and immunities under
The exercise of this high power is asserted by
Nlrtue OF the power and authority vested in me by
6Reople of the United States and it is insisted that
this act of the sovereign people, through the Pre-
ident, is authorized by the clauses OF the Consttu
*tloD which declare: "The President shall have
Fpower to grant repreves and pardons for offences
8against the United States, except in cases Of i'm
|peachment," and that the proclamation is in strict
accordance with the judicial exposition of the au-
.horty there conferred upon the Executive, will
pc seen by reference to the accompanying papers,
%cy and in conformity with the precedents esta-
blshed by Washington in 1895, and followed by
Gesluent ADAMS In loOO, Madison in 1915, and Pre-
sident Lincoln in 1868, and by the present Execu-
tive in 1865, 1861 and 1865
| The Committee after a careful examination of
the subject, have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the proclamation in question was
wholly beyond the constitutional power of the
President, and that it can have efficiency to the
enc. sought TO be realized by it. The operative
woids are "pardon' and "amnesty," the first of
which is found in the Constitution and the last is
not, The Constitution with its weighed and care
fully chosen language, permits the President to
grant reprieyes and pardons, not pardon and am
These two words have been known and used in
i the law for hundred years, and their scope and
meaning have never been subject of dispute.
| They are not synonymous or equivalent. They i'm
port, as they always have done, widely different
law books will demonstrate this fact Pardon in
the English law, it had existed down to the time
of the formation of Constitution, and it still
exists, was an act of executive clemency proceeding
personally from the King either directly by the sign
manual or indirectly under the great seal to speci-
fed person named, and its effect was if he chose to
avail himself of it, to relieve him from the punish
ment and losses not already suffered for the spe
clhc crime named in the instrument. 1t did not
look backward, but only forward. It did not re-
store what was lost, but RENTED what was yet to
be suffered. (See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol
d, title Reprieves and Pardons) And so Jealous
was the law of England on the subject, that until
comparatively recent period the royal prerogatiye
of pardon was confined to limited class of Offences
in which the presumption might exist that the ac-
cused was morally Innocent; and the power
otherwise hedged about with many other safe
guards against abuse not necessary to be here
referred to-. The power of general pardon
by any English sovereign as the committee be-
lieve, after Great Britain had constitution and
settled jurisprudence, although it was frequently
exercised under and by act of Parliament. From
the earliest years of the reign of Elizabeth,
1885, until after the American Revolution, am
nesty was an act of oblivion of past offences
granted by government to those who had
been guilty of crime. 1t was an act of sovereign
power which effaced and caused TO be forgotten the
offence ITSELF and it made it the same SO far as the
public concerned if the offence had never
been committed; and, by consequence it operated
restoration of all rights, &C., which pardon did
not. One instance will illustrate the difference
from and superior effect to a pardon.
1t purified blood corrupted by attainder, and
made it Unbeatable, which pardon did not; it was
granted by the sovereign power to whole classes of
offenders for the purpose of sustaining tranquility
in the State. Thus it will be perceived that am
nesty is larger power than pardon, operating
upon the crime instead of the criminal and effect
ing restoration and restitution d6 RiO, instead of
merely remitting uneXecuted punishment, and pro-
ceeding like what is called general pardon not
from the Executive, be he king or president, but
from the government.
The sovereign power in England was the King,
in and with his Parliament, as in the United
States 1t is the Congress, acting with the approval
of the President, or by twO-thrds vote without it,
The clear conclusion is that underline English sys-
tenn of government no power. either of amnesty or
general pardon, existed in the King The know
ledge of these legal terms: "amnesty," "pardon "
"reprieve," and of their settled meaning and ef-
feet, must have existed in the Constitutional Con-
yention in 1887.
That body, striving to bride all powers of a
kingly nature, rather than to enlarge them, did
choose to use the word amnesty at all in the Con.
stitution, but conferred upon the President the
power simply to grant reprieves and pardons the
one expressing temporary, and the other q perma
nent suspension of punishment on an individual
offender.
reply to the authorities given by the President fol
issuing the proclamation and conclude as follows:
They of opinion that the power attempted tC
be exercised in the proclamation referred to-
to grant general pardon and amnesty by the
President by proclamation without the authority
Constitution laws and that its exercise ough
not to be continued. They, therefore, report re
solution that, in the opinion of the Senate, tn,
proclamation of the President of the United State
Of the 25th of December, 1868, purportng to gran
pardon and amnesty to all persons guilty of Treason
and acts of hostility to the United States durni
the rebellion, with restoration of rights, ETC., wa
not authorized by the Constitution or laws.
The subject lies over in the Senate for futur
action.