Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-16

llpEcSSlVh t1at ZIG otASS ~ q p1E
don is fulfilled when the subject is
released from the specific punish
ment adjudged against him for his
crime. But its scope is far wider
than this. It's amplitude is thus
recognised by the Supreme Court
of the United States.
"a pardon reaches both the punish.
ment prescribed for the offence and the
guilt Of the offender and when the par-
don is fullit releases the punishment and
blots out of existence the guilt, so that,
in the eye Of the law, the offender is as
innocent as if he had never committed
the offence. Ii granted before ctnyic~
ton, it prevents any Of tho penalties and
disabilities consequent upon conviction
from attaching. If granted after con.
yiction, it removes the penalties and disc
abilities and restores him to all his civil |
rights. 1t makes him, as it were, a new
man, and gives him new credit and ca
pacity. 49, he is thus placed |
beyond the resch Of punishment Of any
kind. But to exclude him by reason Of
that offence from continuing in the en-.
| joyment of previously acquired right
is to enforce punishment for that Of
fence, notwithstanding the pardon. If
| such exclusion can be effected by the
exaction of an expurgatory oath cover
| ing the offence, the pardon may be
avoided, and that accomplished indirects
ly which cannot be reached by direct
Legislation" l
This is. comprehensive, but one
or two familiar illustrations may
possibly render its effect clearer.
A woman was convicted of theft
and afterward pardoned. She COM
mitted the offence a second time,
and was put upon trial. The pros
ecutor insisted tina. she was liable
to tlse law which inflicted a greater
punishment for a second trans
erosion than for the first. But it
was held that the pardon had OBJ
liberated her guilt as well as her
punishment, and she could now
only, be punished as far as first
offence. This was leading case.
1t has become standard authority,
controlling all adjudications of kin
bred character, in England and
| America. A man named Girardin
was convicted and sentenced to
| Death in France for political Of
fence. The effect of the judgment
alone was civil death, with all the
legal consequences of natural dis
solution. He was pardoned. Assum-
ing that his civil death had absolved
his marriage tie, he applied to the
proper authorities to be re-
married. The application found
its way into the highest judicial
tribunal, where it was denied; the
ground of the refusal being that
the pardon had restored him to
everything of which his crime, or
its effects, had deprived him. "The
amnesty had annihilated the SEN
tence pronounced against Girardin,
had abolished the past, and had re-
integrated the amnested in the
plenitude of his civil life; that,
consequently, he is to be regarded
as having never been deprived of
civil life, and that the new cele~
bration would be in some sort an
act of derision, and contrary in
every respect to the sanctity of mar
riage." Now contemplate by these
ligths the operation of the Presi-
dent'spardon. The satrap command
ing the first military district under
takes TO punish certain offences
against the sovereignty of the
| United States, by excluding the Of
fender from the ballot-box. This
exclusion results from and is
wholly dependent on the quiet Of
the party excluded. The constitu
tion of the United States, speaking
through the President-its organ
and mouth~piece for the time be
ing-annihilates the guilt with all
its consequences to the offender,
wherever or by whatever means
attached. In other words, the con
stitution of the United States says,
through the amnesty or pardon,
that no penal consequences shall
longer attach to the acts designated
or to the person who committed
them. And the Supreme Court of
the United States interprets this
provision of the constitution to
mean that a full pardon, such
as that Mr., Fauntleroy received,
releases the punishment and blots
out of existence the guilt, SO that,
in the eye Of the law, the offender
is as innocent as if he never com
mitted the offense." Gen. Candy,
II
who is sovereign of the little king
dom once the proud old common
wealth of Virginia, however, de-
elares that the executive par
don does not remove political
disabilities" and that the penal
consequence of Acknowledgement
shall attach to the acts and their
perpetrator. With the one he is
Gas innocent as if he never com
mitted the offense." With the 9th
er he is still guilty and punishable
forever. The constitution of the
United States is held to be "the
supreme law of the land" but the
satrap who commands the first
military district, has bayonets TO