The West Virginia journal. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1864-1877, 1869-02-10
From Harpor,s' Weekly.
The PnrlOniuE. Power.

The Attorney Gen6ral has directed
u discontinuance ofithe prosecution
against Jefferson DAYS, aud so q RI
diculous farce ends.s jHe does it upon
the ground that tho President has
granted full pardo,lsto every rebel.
1t would be interesting to know what
is understood by that term. Is the
pardoning power dispensing power?
| When the President declares that he
restores jefferson DnTiB to all his privi-
lcgcs and immunitiesSdoes he quietly
set aside the Constitution o:'thc United
| States, which, BY its fourteenth amend
mcnt, says ,hut jefferson Dnvis shall
not be restored until iCongress, by h
vote Of o-.hirds, S9;decides, or does
| It merely dispense VIE lie law fiat
provides trials for treason? If the
President, by proclamation Of par
don, HAY at once relieve efall liability
every offender under Il certain law Of
the United States, he may certainly
relieve all offenders umlcrail the laws.
lie may TO. morrow grant Il full par
don" to all the rOunirricitrrs "nd all
! the. violators Of the Revenue lawS--a
power which the Constitution surely
never meant TO give him.
The words OF the Constitution arc :
! lie shall have power 10 grant rcpricvcs
and parduns for ollrnsc against the
United States, except in ca>r' OF I'M
pcachmcnt." But il may fairly be as.
serted that no man can be rardoncd
who has not been proved TO have com.
mittrd IN oll'cnsc. Aud wly is hc
tried but to determine that very fact
The pardoning power is plainly in,cn'
ded 10 relieve Of the consequences ol
crime those upon whom crime has been
Ipruvcd, but in whose cases there are
considerations that demand c!rmcncy
! Necessarily these are individual caScS
and The provision con;cml Ia,cS M
other. 1t is absurd to suppose hat the
Constitution intends 10 authorize the
President 10 declare that nobody shall
be published for M offence against the
United States. Yet this is wlnt is as
serted when ii is claimed that he may
relieve all persons who arc prcSump'
lively guilty of Il certain otlrnSc. moi
only Of pruaIty, but OLA trial.
The ol!rr Of amnesty during HOSTILE
ties as Il means Of settling the difficult!
and restoring peace is entirely differ
cnt. This is Il case where the offer o
amnesty was r. rjrctcd, and where peace
was obtained by absolute >uhjugaliOl
ol the enemy. When that peace j.
fully secured there is no occasion ioI
amnesty. and the word is wholly in
applicabl.> There remains, then, st
far rs the EXccatirr is concerned, Onl!
offenders, when The O!lrnsc is proved
and the par,lonin@ power. II it b,
sail ,ha. our situation required Il pc
cu!iar Treatment. and that the lar@rs
generosity is the wi>c>t craftsmanship
we heartily agree. But the question
is still the very one which has excl
teal the country 50 I"n%. and upon
which i, has 80 authUritativcly pro
'' uounrrtl whether the national policy
toward the late rebels shall be deter
mined by the President only or by Con
"rrS<. The action OF the President il
i>snin. the proclamation under whIrl
the Attorney General directs the re-
lease OF Davis is merely rritcratioi
OF his power to settle the whuir ours
lion arising from The war III his III
dividuaI pleasure. Under the rlam>t
comirrrin" the par,loning power i'll
tended for specific and exceptional IN
divit.ual casts, he assumes 10 dctrrniln,
the greatest and most vital pOlil!ca
questions arising from the war, whici
the people have decided that Congress
alone shall Determines