The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-08
BY TELEGRAPH.
WASHINGTON.

middle districts OF Alabama, vice Hines, re-
moved
The noted counterfeiter. Pete NJ ,Cartney, |
escaped from the custody of United States Mar
shall Purnell, of the eastern district Of Texas |
at Dremond, Texas, this morning. Mozart |
ney is indicted iii four judicia! districts. This
is his third escape within four months.
An interesting case has just been decided
in the Court of Claims, namely: John kuste
against the United States. The petitioner
sets forth that he was citizen Of West Nir-
g;nia; that specified personal property of his
was seized and lbeied on the ground OF his
all. sed treason and rebellion, and by the
decree Of the United States District Coult for
the District and State of West Virginia, was
condemned and forfeited to 6e United States
under the act OF July II, 1862 and sold, and
the proceeds, amounting to Sll 900. paid
into the treasury, aud he averred that
by virtue of the Presidents proclamation
of December 2G. 1868, he was pardoned and
relieved of all disabilities and penalties
attaching to the oifense of treason and rebel
lion, tor which said property was confisca-
ted, and by virtue thereof he has been re-
stored to all his rights, privileges and immu-
mites under the Constitution OF the United
S ates and the laws made IN pursuance
thereof, and TINT he was entitled to receive
from tae United States the said proceeds OF
the sale, and As prayed for judmen: for
$1,000
The defendants filed q general demurrer to
the petition, and on that the issue was joined
and the Gaze argued and submitted to the
Court of Claims Judge Loring delivered
tho opinion OF the court, giving the constrac-
ton OF the word pardon in the Constitution
on the authority of Chief Justice Marshall
according to its s;guiii ,ation in English law
a. the time the Constitution was adop. ed and
concludes as follows:
When the Constitution gives to Congress
The towor to dispose Of the public properly
and pf5gides tlat no money shall be drawn
from the Public Treasury except by an appro-
priaton made by law, it positively excludes
the President from any control ct the
national property, real or personal, and so 1t
oas always been held.
The forfeiture in this case was by the judg
ment that contiscated it to the United States
as absolutely national property then, as this
capitol is now, and as al the time of the a,op
ton OF cur constitution the kings power to
restore torfeitIres was merely the legal conse-
uuences of his title in them AM was not de-
rived from and made no part OF his direct
prerogative power to pardon crimes, we think
that tie second section Of tina second article
Of ..hs constitution investing the President
with the power to pardon crimes did not au-
thorize him to restore forfeitures or to dispose
of that part of the national property.
By tue act of July II, 1862, Congress au-
thorized the President to grant to those who
had participated in the rebellion pardon and
amnesty, and both OF these words are used in
the proclamation of December %, 1868 As
the Legislature can neither extend nor restrict
| the power OF the Executive to pardon Crimes
| the only question arising here Is whether the
word amnesty in the act OF Congress au-
thorized the President to restore forfeitures.
VIVA. may be the technical meaning or
effect OF the word ''amnesty" in other
countries, under different forms OF govern
! meut and a different system OF law, IS foreign
| to the subject: but the word amnesty does
not belong to the common law and has no
technical meaning in it, and can be used in 1t
only in the meaning of its synonym in our
language and that is oblivion" tor the de-
riyative and literal meaning Of amnesty
is removed from memory" and i'll the Eug-
lish law oblivion is tho synonym of pardon.
and is so used in it, for the act is entitled an
act of free pardon, indemnity and oblivion,
and these are also its special words OF grint,
and the case under that act of Tombes, adj
ministrator, VS.. Esherington, heretofore cited,
therefore decides expressly that grant OF
| free pardon and indemnity and oblivion
by an act of Parliament does not effect or In
clude the restoration of fOrfeltures, and we
know of no decision or authority in the En-
glish law that decides grant OF amnesty II
or can be any thing more than o grant OF
oblivion. The word amnesty properly be-
longs to international law. and IS applied to
treaties of peace following state OF war and
signifies there the burial in oblivion OF the
particular cause of the strife, so that 1t shall
not be again a cause OF war between the
parties, and the Specification of amnesty is
fully and POLITICALLY expressed in the Indian
custom OF burying the hatshet. SO amnesty
is applied to rebellions which, by their mag
nitude, are brought within the rules OF inter
national law, and in which multitudes Of men
are the subjects of the ciemency of the gov
ernment; but, in these cases and IN all cases,
it means only oblivion, and never expresses
or implies grant.
1t is observable that the Executive procla-
nation of pardon previous to that of Deem
Der %, 1868, prof red in terms a restoration
of property. while the proclamation Of Deem
GER %, 1868, relied upon IN this case, used
the words restoration OF rignts, privileges
and inmunities"
! It might be that these words would bt
satisfied by mere removal OF disabilities,
but we have not sought to found an argument
ON this difference OF phraseology on the whole
case. We are of opinion that The prociama
the petitioner to restoration of the confis
Gated property claimed in his petition, ant
the order Of the court is that the petition b.
dismissed.
| Chief Justice Drake did not sit in the tria
of this case or take part in the decision.
WASHINGTON, April THE Court OF Claims
has Just decided that full pardon and am
ne sty to those concerned in the late war
while it blots or throws into oblivion all per
sonal offenses, does not restore the proceeds
placed in the treasury from confsca.ed prop
erty sold.
The word "pardon must, the Court says
be construed according to its meaning g.!
found in the English statute law at the tiu'
of the formation Of the Constitution. Th'
king had no power to restore estates exccp
those IN which he might be personally inter
ested. Besides, the proceeds of the confs
Gated properly being covered in the Treasury
it could not be drawn therefsom except b.
virtue Of law passed in conformity with tn
Constitution.
WASHINGTON, April THE following dis