Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-01-20

prieves and pardons for offenses against
the United States, except in cases Of i'm
parchment
The power thus conferred is unlim-
tied, with the exception stated 1t ex-
tends to every offense known to the law,
and may be exercised at any time after
Its commission, either before legal pro-
ceedings are taken, or during their pend
sncy, ,or after conviction and Judgment
This power of the President is not SUBJ
ject to Legislative control Congress can
neither limit the effect of pardon nor
exclude from its exercise any class Of
offenders The benign prerogative of
mercy reposed in him cannot be fetiered
by any Legislative restrictions.
''Such being the case, the inquiry /
arises as to the effect and operation of
pardon, and on this point all the authori-
ties concur. A pardon reaches both the |
punishment prescribed for the ofense
and the guilt Of the offender; and when
the pardon is full, it releases the punish
ment 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 offense. If granted bsS
fore conviction, it prevents any OF the |
penalties and disabilities consequent
upon conviction from attaching; if
granted after conviction, it removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores
him to all his civil rights; it makes him,
as itwere, a new man, and gives him a
new credit and capacity.
There is only this limitation to its
operation 1t does not restore Offices for-
| feited, or property or interests vested in
others in consequence of the conviction
and judgment.
"The pardon produced by the petit
toner is a full pardon for all offences
| by him committed, arising from participa-
ton, directly or implied, in the rebellion,
and is subject to certain conditions
which have been complied with. The
effect of this pardon is to relieve the pes
titioner from all penalties and disabilities
attached to the offence Of treason, COM
mitted by his participation in the rebel
lion So far as the offence is concerned,
he is thus placed beyond the reach of
punishment of any kline"
| Than this, it is presumed not
even the captions who have pre-
tended to doubt the Presidents au-
thority to grant general amnesty,
could desire information more spe-
cifc and ineligible. The mere
form of the pardon is matter of
no importance: If any decision
were needed on this point, one may
be found in 2 Wheaton's Reports of
the Opinions of the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania. The opinion Of
the court, in the case Of Hoff-
man VS.. Custer, was delivered
by the eminent jurist, Judge
Sergeant. 1t declared that no par
ticular language or form of words
was essential to pardon by the
President of the United States.
OF course, where it is general, to a
wide class of persons, it could not
contain the names of each and all
Of them. The law makes and GER
tainly contemplated no such re-
quirement. In connection with the
| pretension Of Congress TO NEEDLE
with the exercise Of the pardOning
power, and especially in the way OF
amnesty, claim now asserted by
many members of Congress, it is
both curious and instructive to read
what is said by Alexander Hamil-
ton on this point in the seventy
fourth number of the FederdIiSt,
| which is as follows:
1.-THE expediency of yesting the power
e OF Fardoning in the President has, If
mistake not, been only contested in re-
lation to the crime of treason. This, il
has been urged ought to have depended
upon the assent of one, or both branches
Of the legislative body. | shall not deny
that there are strong reasons to be as
signed for requiring, in this particular
| the concurrence of that body, or of q
| part of it. As treason is a crime leveled
at the immediate being of the society
) | when the laws have once ascertained
the guilt of the offender there seems
a fitness in referring tho expediency OF
an act of mercy towards him % the
, | judgment of the legislature And this
9 ought the rather to be the case, as the
suppOsition of the cOnnivance of the
Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely
excluded But there are also strong OBJ
jections to such a plan. 1t is not to be
b doubted that single man Of pruI nee
| and good sense is better fitted in delicate
| cOnjuIctures to balance the motives
which may plead for and against the re-
| mission of the punishment, than any
numerous body whatever. 1t deserves
particular attention, that treason will
often be connected with seditions which
embrace large proportion of the com
munity, as lately happened in Massachu-
sets. In every such case we might ex-
pect to see the representation Of the peo-
pie tainted with the same spirit which
had given birth to the offense. And when
parties were pretty equally poised, the Sc
cret sympathy of the friends and favorers
of the condemned, availing itself of the
good nature and weakness of others,
might frequently bestew IMMUNITY where
the terrier of an example was necessary.
| On the other hand, when the sedition had
proceeded from causes which had in
famed the resentments of the major par
| ty, they might often be found obstinate
and memorable, when policy demanded a
conduct of forbearance and clemency.
But the principal argument for reposing
the power Of pardoningin this case in the
Chief Magistl ate is this: In seasons Of
instruction or rebellion, there are often
critical moments, when awell-timed offer
Of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may
restore the tranquility of the common
wealth, and which, if suffered to pass un-
improved, it may never be possible aC-
forwards to recall
As often as our attention is called
to the papers Of the Federa7ist, we
cannot avoid wondering, more and