Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-25
OF JOHNsON,s AmNEs-
--PFP REORGANIZATION

Mr. parpenter thought it.quite lnaniT
fest that it was not the purpose of those
who fRamedthe Constitution of-the UNI
ted States 70 annihilate great sovereign
howe- which the eSperi ence of the Eng
lish naatotph had Shown was atjsclutc1Y ne
cessafy to IT'D #elf-being. In this view Of
the case, he expressed the opinion that 1T
could mot dbN eontroy erted THAT the pro- /
elannaaoP Of President johnson was a
valid actqof, pardon, = and that it has the
legal effect to ex6nerate Dr.. Miller fromo
allsuh o6hsed6enees0f his patticiP patti nni '
IN The rebellion ~: .fas far as, would have
been accomplished by an express pardoRI
delivered TO Kun on. the day of IFS date.o' ,
Asto the effect Of such q pardon, We are
referred, by athendeeisions of the oSn-
prenc Court Ufathe United States.in the
cases of United IS. Wilson; z Pet, $50,
and e. purte Wells, 16 How, 3l5, TO the,
English authorities for the effect of "a
pardon the, Supreme Court holding thai
q = Il :. b.
the 7effectrof pardon uudero our Censti=i
tuition is the game as pardon in Eng:
land. blackstone, volume two, page =
says yI.arsH oz-z -slrx7 ed oil ho.i
ssThe effect of apardonis TO make the
offender anew man, to aeqIIt him of all
corporal penalties and forfeitures annexed
to that offense for which he obtains par
don; it gives hin a new credit and capae-
| ity; and the pardon OF, treason or felony,
even after conviction or attainder, viii
| enable a man to have an action OF SIAN
der for calling him traitor or felon. nya
Mr.. Carpenter also referred to Bishops
Criminal Law, section seven hundred and
thirteen; Cope VS.. Commonwealth, 2S
Pennsylvania State, 297; Perkins VS..
Stevens, "a Pick, $50; Jones VS.. Harris,
/ Strobe, 1852; and People VS.. Pease, 3
Johnson's Cases, S6S, and cases there
cited, as establishing the proposition that
| q pardon removes all stain, consequence,
and disability resulting from the crime
! paIdoned, and restores the party to all
the privileges, immunities, and rights he
would have enjoyed had he never com
mitted the offense. Fortified by these
authorities, Mr.. Carpenter asserted that
the constitutional effect of President
Johnson's proclamation of amnesty is to
| declare that Dr. Miller shallno longer suf-
fer any deprivation of his rights, priv
leges, and immunities, in con-
sequence of having participated
in the 'rebeIlion. GIN orther words, "
says Mr. Carpenter, "lhe case is the same
as though the Constitution had in express
words declared that no person who had
| committed the crime of treason, and there
after had been pardoned by the President
of the United States, should thenceforth
suffer any deprivation of rights, privi-
/ leges, OF immunities, on account of that
crime; and that any act of Congress which
has the effect to exclude him from any
right, privilege, Immunity, office, or en-
ployment, on account of such crime, sub
sequent to such pardon, is unconstitution-
al and void, because it would produce &
result which the Constitution says shall
no longer exist"
Mr.. Carpenter says:
THE Constitution was designed to Sc
cure substantial rights and produce Ger
tain results; and any act of Congress
which produces an effect which the Con-
| slitutiOn intends to prevent is uncOnstitu-
| tiouGL Congress cannot eVRde the Con-
stitution by any Induction. If an act
| of Congress acCOmplishes what the Con-
stiution forbid5, the effect of the act is
/ in conflict with the Constitution, and the
act is void. (S6e Green VS.. Biddle, s
Wheat; l; Bronson VS.. Kinzie, How,
5l1; MCCIacken VS.. Haywood, 2 How,
| Cos; and the Passenger Ca.es, z How,
2S3.) r-
"'To illustrate, the Constitution pro-
Vidcs that
6" No ataindeT of treason shall work
corruption of blood OF forfeiture except
during the life of the per son attainted.'
'.An act OF Congress which should pro-
vide that before any heir should enter
! UDnu his ancestral estate he should take
an Oain tha. his ancestor mad never been
gliliyUf treason, and that on default of
! taking such oath the estate should CschC8t,
| would produce result which the Con-
| stitUiOn fJIbidS, and would therefore be
void Again the Constitution forbids the
| passage of any 60 post fdctO law; that is,
any law which shall declare an act TO be
| criminal which was innocent q. the time
of its performance, u which shall add TO
crime puuitoTy consequence which the
law dill not attach 10 it at the time of its
! C mmission.
snow, assault and battery is an
| offcnsu punishable Jy fine, but not fol
loscd by disqualification to hold office.
Emb zzioment Of public moneys is crime
punishable by fine and Imprisonment
! only. Now, an act Of Congress requiT-
| Ing every person before entering upon any
| Office to take an oath that he had never
! committed assault and battery nor en-
! bczLlcd public funds would, in its pTacti.
! Cal operation, add q disability and IL
crease jdc punishment provided 10y law
! for such OdeDsG when it was committed,
and would therefore be an &c post JuctO
law, repuguant to the Constitution, and
void
Concerning the validity Of the procla-
nation of President johnson, said Mr.
Carpenter, the principles here commended
for arc fully sustained by two decisions of
.ho Supreme Court of the United States,
reported in / Wallace, Cummings VS.. the
state Of Missouri, p. 277, and &C paHe
Garland. p. 333.
Mr.. Carpenter says:
"rheTe is another ground upon which
this act, so far as it effects d.. Miller,
must be declared void, because it would
otherwise accomplish a result forbidden
| by he Constitution.
'If there is any one thing evident,
from even the most casual inspection of
the Constitution, it is design TO prevent
! any person from being subjected to any
penalty on account OF treason until duly
convicted by Judicial court having juris-
! diction to punish him for the offense The
Constitution, article one, section nine,
| declares:
"'NO bill Of attaindcr or ex post facto