Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-04-23
FRIDAY, APRIL 70.
Conflscated Property.

The recent decision or the Case vi oohu
Knote against the United States-the result OF
which was lately reported by telegraph-is OF
more than passing interest, determining as 1t
does, 80 far as the decision of lower tribunal
can, the status of the property which was coo-
fscated, during the late war,by the Federal gov
erument. Through the courtesy OF counsel we
have been favored with brief of the argu-
ment, and copy of the opinion of the Court
It appears that the personal property of the
petitioner had been con6scated by decree OF
the u. 8. District Court tor the State OF West
VIRGINIA, under the act of July 18th, 1862, and
sold, and the proceeds Of the sale, amounting
to 1000, were paid into the U. 5. Treasury !;
and the petitioner claims that, by virtue OF the
General Amnesty Proclamation of President
johnson, of 25th December 1868, be was re-
lieved of all the penalties and disabilities at
taohipg to the offence for which his property
was confscated, and therefore he was entitled
to restitution Of the property, or as that could
not be specifically restored. to restitution OF
the proceeds traced in specie into the treasury.
Linden Kent, ESQ.,, Of this city, and Mr.. Mil
Ter, of the Washington bar, counsel for the
claimant, urged that the Constitutional power
of the President to pardon was unlimited, and
could not be restricted by Congressional enact.
ment that the power to pardon includes the
power OF RENTING forfeitures, and that the
general pardon of December rs, 1868 commonly
known as the christmas Gift Proclamation,
was full exercise of the pardoniDg power,
and entitled the pardoned man to restoration
of his property, or its proceeds, 10 the hands
of the United States, illustrating the argument
by analogies of the English law, and citing
early Euglish cases, especially those following
the Act of Grace, II Oh. 2 G. IL.
The United States Attorney General urged
that the President of the United States has no
power to appropriate money in the Treasury
and his pardon could not operate to do that in-
directly which be had no authority to do direct
", and that the pardon relied on contained
no technical word of restitution.
Mr.. Justice Loriog delivered the opinion of
the Court at some length, holding that the
power to restore forfeitures and the power to
pardon have no connection with, and no rela-
ton to each other; that the power OF the Eog-
lish Crown to restore forfeiture arose from his
acquiring all forfeited property, so he had the
power to restore to the pardoned man as to
grant to any one else, and that pardon to
effect restoration of forfeiture must contain
word manifesting the intent to convey, and
efficient for it, and decided that the Proclama-
ton of 25th December, 1868, does not entitle
the petitioner to restoration of his property.
We have no wish to comment upon the con-
duct of judicial proceedings, and especially
upon such as may be reviewed on appeal but
the opinion 10 this case calls to our memory the
numerous instances 10 which Executive Glenn
ency in this country has relieved from forfeit
lures and surely this power iu America was
not derived from any interest the Executive
had 10 the forteitures. We hope the highest
judicial tribunal will have an opportunity to
pass upon this cause that we may authorta-
lively learn the limits Of the powers given by
the Constitution Of the United States ito grant
pardons and reprieves."