The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-01-07
gitI,u,ond 1lspatfh,
;. pAY..........JANUARY Z, 1862
Amnesty.

rrpRy offered resolution request
Mr. PRESIDENT to transmit copy of the
ins INC ocstv proclamation, with a state
late s - he authority by which he issued
reh,N Mr. FERRY said that he offered the re-
1t; ,;nn because, although he favored the
soa" s,r ne doubted the right OF the Pre-
aan anne. - grant it in this sweeping way and
s'oeH se5 10 have the question settled.
be VISION EDWARD was very glad that the st
M NJ. = IF the Senate had been called to the
t'no%n He thought it important that the
qces,,o.'nf the United States should know
Yc'I,,o, the President had such dispen-
sSc'u ,orer as was implied in the issue 0:
:i?s RECLAMATION. He believed that the
'ns sr5nt;on by the Executive Of such q
- was entirely unwarranted by the
IoN si The amnesty seemed to have
.OnS;; attended as sort Of Christmas present
oeen The President of the United States
iToI President of the late Confederacy
Va his confcderates.
Sn ~ FRELINGHUYSEN also was glad
o.,eption was called to the proclama-
' 'as' sIthongh he thought it more important
W. o,;s;nr great question In regard to the
~ .rsrs Of the Executive than In any other
Pow" pow, He did not find in the Constitution
sr rant of any such powers as the Presi.
s.s, claimed in this case, nor power to
u u.an, amnesty at all. In England the King
s.%D .fah power, but that was because he
I.S"r-ssrntcd the sovereignty of the nation
'.-ss;r.t which The offence is committed.
T T1', il is the King Us. A 3, but in the
r,;,ed States it is not the President Us.
:. r but the people us.sA 8.
Nr. CONKLING remarked that even in
ynclspd, Of late years, it has never been
insisted that the King had right to pardon
h. General proclamation without naming
,,ySolr pardoned. The Presidents pro-
rIonstion assumed not merely that he had
. r;rh, TO pardon a B, charged with an Of
fence but not convicted Of it, but that he
hiss right to dispense clemency to all per-
sons whatever. If that assumption was
correct, then the Governor Of New York
had right to pardon and set free all per-
sons accused or suspected of burglary,
arson. murder, or any other crimes
nrvsr never exercised, and never claimed.
Mr.. DOQLITTLE said that the Supreme
rour, had expressly decided in the case of
Garland that the President has power, by
genera! proclamation, at any time after the
Commission of the offence, before legal pro-
ceediDgs, or during their tendency, as well
as after conviction, to pardon offenders and
that Congress had no right whatever to
limit this power, in the exercise of which
the President does represent the sovereign
nsople OF the United States. He read from
the decision Of the Supreme Court in the
Garland case in support of his position.
Mr.. CONKLING inquired whether it was
decided in the Garland case that the Presi-
dent could pardon in general terms before
conviction
Mr.. DOOLITTTE replied that he believed
that Garland was parjoned under such q
general PROCLAMATION.
MIR. FERRY asked whether the Senator
made any distinction between pardon and
amnesty
Mr.. DUOLITTLE said no. The question
whether the persons pardoned were named
in the PROCLAMATION was, in his opinion, inn
material, and had not been decided by the
court because no one had thought of raising
it. The President, having the right to par
d0n one OueLuef, nau, aS u Hatter OF course,
right to pardon together several persons
guilty or accused Of the same offence.
Mr.. DAVIS approved of the resolution of
inquiry, because the subject was important
but he had no doubt Of the Presidents right
to grant the amnesty, the Constitution vest
ing such power wholly in the President
not at all in Congress. He thought there
could be no doubt Of the right to pardon
before conviction, as well SIS after.
Mr.. CONKLlNG remarked that the de-
cison in the Garland case did not go so far
as Mr.. D0OLITTLE thought it did. The
question, he said, was not whether the Pre-
sident could pardon man for an offence,
but whether he could thus pardon all men
Tor all ofences-a very important question.
Mr.. lOOLITTLE said that he had been
mistaken in saying that Garland was par
doned under general amnesty, without
being named but he held the decision in
that case 10 be that the power Of the Presi-
dent to pardon and grant reprieves, except
In cases OF impeachment, is unlimited.
The question was then taken on the reso-
luton, and it was adopted.