New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-03-24
TIE PRESIDENTS POWER To COMMUTE A
SENTENCE.

DOUBTS As TO IFS EXISTENCE-COMMENTs on
1HE O'BRIEN CASE-AN IMPORTANT FRECE-
DENT.
prom rHE ERGULAR CORRESPONDENT OP THE TRIBUNEl
WAsHNGTON, March 22.-It Is suggested to-day
that the counsel for the murderer O'Brien, whose
sentence II death has been committed to imprisOn-
nent for fs By the President might ask for his dis
charge on writ Of habeas corpus, on the ground
that the President has no power TO sentence crimi
nG % iuy punishment, and that the conditions
which be appended 10 bis pardon that O'Brien
should agree 10 submit 10 Imprisonment for life
were VOID The President is. by the second section
Of Article IT, Of the Constitution Of the United
States gwen power 80 grant reprieves and DardOns
Coz oHsn,es against the United States, except in
eases of impeachment Some acts have been
passed by Congress regulating the exercise Of tins
power By the President IN cases arising in the army
and nauv but there is no law relating 10 it's hmta-
tOH outside Of those branches Of the service If the
ease should come before the Supreme Court DOW, its
decision would be looked for with great interest, as
many good lawyerslhave not been satisfied with the
opinions already given by that tribunal
In 49, President Fillmore committed the sentence
oiWm. Wells. convicted of murder in one OF the
courts Of this District and sentenced TO be hanged,
% imprisonment for life; that Is he psrdOned him
on the same condition that President Grant has
made IN the case of OBrien, and this was the first
i1stanoe OF the kind that ever occurred. The man
Eas 1ftorward taken before the L. 5. Circuit Court
Tor the District a writ of habeas corpus, and that
tribunal having refused TO discharge him. the case
Eas appealed 10 the Supreme Court. There II was
argued that the paTdoniDg power OF the President
vas SIMPLE and absolute in it's nature that he had
10 f'ghf To legislate new punishment FOR the crime
o. mufder in the case Of Wells, and then proceed
IN TTurlT gfTl-
nsni iOr life; that the communication of a sentence
CONSISTED Of two distinct acts-frst the pardon
~bioh nobody doubted the Presidents power TO
grant and secondly a sentence TO imprisonment
Which wa denied he had power 70 pronounce.
The opinion Of the Court, concurred in by all but
thtee OF be Judges was that the pardoning power
Of ths President. given him by the Constitution
must BE- defined By the construction put upon the
similar power exercised by the sovereigns OF treat
b'isiU al the time our Constitution was framed
and, a. the light Of the King of England at that
Tine - commute sentences or grant conditional par
u'is was gudOubted. il was necessary 70 conclude
tai The makers Of the Constitution intended that
lls pa7nDnng power Of the President should be as
bOAd- Mr.. Justice Mclean dIssented from TINS
opinion aud held that as the President was nowhere
gwen power 70 pronounce sentence upon man u
wa power that could not be inferred. ana that'
thseiore the condition of the pardon was VOID the
pardon absolute. and the man should be discharged
Two other members Of the Court denied their Durls-
a.etioh Of the case There is little doubt that the
Yss1ti Court would sustain the opinion referred TO-
Dl ths decision % the Court would be interesting
Vas 70 all lawyers.
The eass Of OBren il is proper to say, has never
- IA t1e hands OF the Attorney General, ana bhe
SefnnulsaiOn was the sole act of the President
~ cAse Of Barney Woods convicted last Summer
VI murder N the first degree for shooting Cheese
- eh bis employer was a much mlldeT one imam
vans Of D Brien and the strongest efforts were made
secure Communication Of his sentence. but the
.ofney General IN q vigorous letter decided not 10
ei5cuteI