Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1869-01-15


On the meeting of tho Senate Tuesday,
the following notice was taken of the
Presidents Christmas proclamation OF
general amnesty:
Mr.. Ferry offered resolution requesting the
President to transmit to the Senate copy Of the
late amnesty proclamation, and requiring by
what authority 1t was issued. He said that while
he favored the amnesty, he offered the resolution
because he doubted the right Of the President to
grant it in this sweeping way, and thus establish
a precedent, and he wished the question settled.
Mr.. Howard was very glad the attention of the
thought it important that the people of tn United
States should know whether the President had
such dlspensory powers as were implied in the
case Of this proclamation. He believed the as
sumption by the Executive of such power was
entirely unwarranted by the Constitution. The
amnesty seemed to have been intended as sort
of Christmas present from the President of the
United States to the President of the late Con-
federacy aud his confederates.
Mr.. Frelipghuysen was glad attention had been
called to this proclaim alton, although he thought
it more important raising great question in
regard to the powers of the Executive than in
any other aspect. He did not find in the Consti-
tuition a grant of any such power the Presi-
dent claimed in this case, nor power to grant am
nesty ct all. In England the King had snch a
power, but that was because he represented the
sovereignty of the nation against which the Of
| fence is committed There it was the King vs.. the
President, but the people vs. the offender.
Mr.. Conkln remarked that even in England, of
late years, it had not been insisted that the King
had right to pardon by general proclamation
without naming the persons pardoned. The
Presidents proclamation assumed not merely
that he had right to pardon A. B., charged with
offence but not convicted of it, but that he has
right to dispense clemency to all persons what
ever. If that assumption was correct, then the
Governor of New York had right to pardon and
set free all persons accused Or suspected of bur-
pIarV murder. other
never exercised and never claimed.
Mr.. Doolttle said the Supreme Court had ex-
presslY decided in the case Of Garland that the
President b as power, by general proclamation, at
any time after the commission the offence, be-
fore legal proceedings or during their tendency,
as we'll as after conviction, to grant pardon to
offenders and that Congress had no right what
ever 10 limit this power, in the exercise of which
the President does represent the sovereign peo-
pie o. the United States. He read from the de-.
cision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gar
land in support of his position.
MIR. Conklin inquired whether in that case &c
was decided that the President could pardon in
general terms before conviction.
= Mr.. Docttle was under the impression that
Garland was pardOned under such general pro.
clamation.
Mr.. Ferry asked whether the Senator made any
distinction between amnesty and pardon.
Mr.. Doolittle did not. The question whether
the persons pardoned were named in the pro-
clamation he considered immaterial, and had not
been decided before the court because no one
had thought OF raising it. The President hav-
ing the right to pardon one offender, had the
right to pardon number together guilty 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 vesting such po.er
wholly in the President, and not at all in Con
gress. He thought there could be no doubt of
the right to pardon before conviction as well as
after.
Mr.. Conklin thought the discussion in the Gar
land case did not go 30 far as the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Dcolittle) thought it did. The
question, he said. was not whether the President
could pardon q man for one offence, but whether
he could pardon all men for all Offences very
important question.
Mr. Doolittle admitted hs had been mistaken in
saying that Garland was pardoned under gener-
al proclamation, without being named; but he
held the decision in that to be that the power
Of the President to pardon and grant -eprieyes,
except in cases OF impeachment, is unlimited.
The question was then taken on the resolution
AID it was adopted. 4a<a-