Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-24
LEGALITY OF AEENEs-
TY PROCL AMATION.

should be admitted on the ground that
the act of July 2, 1862, prescribing the
iron clad oath, Gas applied TO him at this
time and in his present capacity, is un-
constitutional. On the 18th of January,
1868, President johnson issued procla-
nation of unc Jnditional pardon to all
who had been engaged in the rebellion,
except only such as were then under in
dictment. The effective part OF this
proclamation is as follows:
CHOW, therefore, be it known that J.,
Andrew Johnson, President of the United
States, do, by virtue of the Constitution
and in the name Of the people of the
United States, hereby proclaim and de-
clare, Internationally and without reser-
walton, to all and to every person who
directly or indirectly participated in the
late instruction or rebellion, excepting
such person or persons as may be under
presentment or indictment in any court OF
! the United States having competent Ju-
risdiction upon a charge of treason or
other felony, full pardon and amnesty
for the offence of treason against the
United States, or of adhering to their
enemies during the late civil war, with
restoration of all rights of property, ex-
cept as to slaves, and except also as TO
any property of which any Person may
have been legally Invested under the laws
of the United States. "
The importance that lhls
proclamation at this time, in view OF the
efforts of the Radical revoluaonists to
override law and justice, as to the people
of the South, induces US to present in full
the main points of Mr.. Carpenters ar
gument sustaining the legality of the
proclamation, and IFS power to wipe out
whatever ''crime" may be charged against
DR.. Miller. We think he presents an
unanswerable argument in support of his
position that the proclamation is legal,
and that DR.. Miller is as fully pardoned
by il as if it had been made to apply to
him in express terms. If it applies thus
to Dr.. Miller, it applies equally TO every
citizen of the Southern States who was
involved in the rebellion. Ii will require
a decision of The Supreme Court of the
United States TO establish this point in
such manner as to secure its recognition
by Radicals, but it will be seen that Mr.
Carpenter is confident as TO what will be
the decision of that tribunal when its in
depreciation of the power and scope Cf
that proclamation is invoked.
Mr.. Carpenter discussed the effect of
the proclamation as follows:
''The first thing TO be considered is the
effect of this proclamation. At the time
this proclamation was issued there existed,
and still exists, great diversity of opinion
as to the propriety of that executive act;
but il is certain that, wisely or unwisely,
such proclamation was issued with all
the forms Of law by the then President
of the United States. Aatpioclamation
would have been vail had The case been
such that every ms, could indOrse its
| propTlcty, il is cqua - valid though every
good citizen in TIT county should regret
and condemn IFS issuance.
"The power 10 pardon offensCs against
the United States is vested in the Presi-
dent; and when exercised by him it pro
Dues the same legal results, whether the
person TO whom il is granted ought or
ought not 10 be pardoncd. Power or
jurisdiction absolutely vested in a public
officer, its exercise is cOnfded to his dis
crctiUH alone, and that discretion Cannot
be reviewed by any other tribunal except
on Impeachment Of such public officer.
Ii authorities be needed TO sustain this
proposition, they are found in Houston
vs.. Moore, Wheaton, /; and Martins VS..
Mott, - Wheaton, "a. The question,
then, is, had the President constitutional
power TO issue this proclamation?
';Article two, sec ion two, of the Con-
siitution provides that the President
shall have power 10 grant reprieves and
paTdons for ofIenscs against the United
States, except in cases of Impeachment.
"While the Constitution was pending
before the people Hamilton, Madison and
John Jay, three Cf the most eminent
statesmen of that time, published a series
of articles, preserved TO US in the volume
We CAL the FcdeTalst, which have ever
been regarded US of great authority in the
construction Of the Constitution. II was
the object of these writers 20 soften the
opposition made 10 the Constitution uron
the ground that il granted TO the Union
powers which might result in the de-
stTuclion of the States. And from be-
ginning to end the effort was to prove
that the Constitution conferred upon the
Union only such powers as the good of
all required; and of course the temptation
was to Lessen rather than exaggerate the
extent of Federal power contemplated by
the Constitution.
u DO not recall a single instance in
which power cOlceded 10 the Federal
Ist to be conferred has been held by the
courts not 10 be possessed by the United
States; while, on the other hand, the
power of the Union has bccn upheld in
theory, and reduced TO practice in many
particulars of which the writer's of that
great vindication not only did not, It Of
which they would not have darc6 as
sert the existence. Therefore, VI. atever
powers the FCderalist comedies to the
Prcsidcn', i. is pretty safe for him to ex-
ercise.
"No. u, by Mr.. Hamilton, is as fol
lows:
The cxpedicncy Of vesting the pow
er of pardoning in the President has, if
mistake not, been only contested in TCla-
ton to the crime of treason. This, it
has been urged, ought to have depended
upon the assent of one or both of the
branches of the legislative body. | shall
not deny that there are strong reasons t.
be assigned for requiring in this particular
the occurrence of that body OF a part of
il. As treason is a crime levelcd at The
immediate being of the society, when The
laws have once a2CCrta!nCd the guilt Of
the offender, there seems a fitness in re-
fcr1ing the eXpcdicncy of an act Of mercy
toward him to the Judgment Of the Legis-
lature And this ought the rather II be
the case, As The supposItion Of the con
nivanCc Of the Chief Magistrate ought
not t. he entirely excluded. But there
arc also strong objections TO such plan.
II is not to be doubted that a single man
of prudence and good SENSE is better fit
tod. in delicate cUDjuncturcs, to balance
the motives which may plead for and
AGAINST the remission of The punishment
- any, ,,1u,nrpug hpdV whatever 7.