Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1869-01-12
THE PROCLAMATION.
Debate in the Senate on Amnesty.

On Tuesday last, Mr.. Ferry, of Connecticut,
| offered resolution requesting the President
to transmit copy of the late amnesty procla-
nation, with statement of the authority by
which he issued it. Mr.. Ferry said that he
offered the resolution because, although he
favored the amnesty, he doubted the right of
| the President to grant it in this sweeping way;
and he wished to have the question settled.
Mr.. Howard was very glad that the atten-
ton of the Senate had been called to the ques-
ton. He thought it important that the peo-
pie of the United States should know whether
the President had such dispensing power as
was implied in the issue of this proclamation.
| He believed that the assumption by the Ex-
ecutive of such power was entirely unwar-
ranted by the Constitution. The amnesty
seemed to have bssu intended as sort of
Christmas present from the President of the
United States to the President of the late
Confederacy and his confederates.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen also was glad that atten-
tion was called to the proclamation, although
hethought it more important as raising great
question in regard to the powers of the. Ex>
ecutive than in any other aspect. He did not
find in the Constitution grant of any such
powers as the President claimed in this case,
nor power to grant ansnes.yat all. En- England
the King had such power, but that was
because he represented the sovereignty of the
nation against which the offence is committed.
There it is the King as. A b, but in the
United States it is not tie President as. A b,
but the people Us. A b.
Mr.. Conkling remarked that even in Eng
land, of late years, it has never been insisted
that the King hada right to pardon by general
proclamation without naming anybody pardon
ed. The Presidents proclamation assumed
not merely that he had right to pardon A
B, charged with an offence but not convicted
of it, but that he has a right to dispense
clemencY to all persons whatever. If that
assumption was correct, then the Governor of
New York had right to pardon and set free
all persons accused or suspected of burglary,
arson, murder, or any other crime,-a power
never exercised, and never claimed.
Mr.. Doolittle said that the Supreme Court
had expressly decided 10 the case of Garland
that the President has power, by general proc
lamation, at any time after the commission of
the offence, before legal proceedings, 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 repre-
sent the sovereign people of the United States.
He read from the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Garland case in support of his
positions.
Mr.. Conkling inquired whether it was
decided in the Garland case that the Presi-
dent could pardon in general terms before
conviction
Mr.. Doolittle replied that he believed that
Garland was pardoned under such general
proclamation.
Mr.. Ferry asked whether the Senator made
any distinction between pardon and amnesty
Mr. Doolttle said no. The question
whether the persons pardoned were named in
the proclamation was, in his opinion, inmate
rial, and had not been decided by the court
because no one had thought of raising it,
The President, having the right to pardon
one offender, had, as a matter of course.
right to pardon togetherjseveral persons gull
ty or accused of the same offence.
Mr.. Davis approved of the resolution Of in
quiry, because the subject was important
but he had no doubt of the Presidents right
to grant the amnesty, the Constitution rest
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 as after.
Mr.. Conkling remarked that the decision
in the Garland case did not go so far as Mr.
Doolittle thought it did. The question, he
said, was not whether the President could
pardon a man for an offence, but whether he
could thus pardon dHmen for all offences
a very important question.
Mr.. Doolittle said that he had been mistaken
in saying that Garland was pardoned under
general amnesty, without being named; but
he held the decision in that case to be that
the power of the President to pardon and
grant reprieves, except in cases of impeach>
ment, is unlimited. .s5
The question was then taken on the resolu-
ton, and it was adopted.