The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-10-04
The Effect Of a Pardon on the
Rights Of a Person Con-
Hcted of Bribery. Per-
jury, or other In
famous Grimes.
Setter from FIae Chairman Of the
Democratic state Executive
Committee.


JAcKsox, Mss. Sept. q. 1876.
J. Z. Hgskfas. Es3
DEAR SIR:-Yaar letter making enQuirv
as q tie IF ct o: a pardon on the figai OF /
pers1u convicted Of bribery, perjury, ar
ether infamous crimes.~ i before me Ny
attention ha- been called t. this subject bv
other persons. and | have heretofore given
the matter all the consideration that it. i'm
portauce deserves. aud | have reached the
conclusion that a pardon has no sffrer 10
give = convict the right Of suffrage or e!igi-
biiity 10 Office.
A a general rule a fall pardon removes
all the punishment and restores the erimi-
nal to al his rights a they existed kafore
the conviction WAS had. but this rule OF
tire cOmmOn law has never been construed
TO have the effect of giving 10 i pardon a
quail ~fiestion denied expressly bv statute. r
hE the constitution. II this was -. section
I79, Of the Code OF 1871, @ould be unconstl
tutionat In limiting the common law eifec
of a pardon in case. OF convictions for per
jury, by preventing such pardon from re-
storing the competency OF a convict for
perjury, to be a witness To tie same effect
was the Act OF 1922. Hutch. Code, D. SCI.
3lll- This view was sustained b. a decision
made by Judge FISHER OF this State in d
case arising in DeSnto county in 1870.
But a disqualification 10 vote Is rot such a
punishment in the legal sense of the word.
Ii is not embraced 10 the judgment OF the
court ~pronoaHeing sentence. Ii il were a
legal punishment for the crime. it would
cease with the expiration of the term OF
i'm priSonment imposed on conviction. X
may operate in one sense aS q severe pun
ishment to the c~oBvict, but the p~uni-hment
woGld be moral and emotional. just as
proof made of the inlamy of \ mans chlr-
acter by general evidence, which would
operate 10 exclude all credit To his state
ment under oath. 1t disqualification 10
vote" were in a legal sense, punishment.
all women would be undergoing a perpetual
punishment for no crime whatever, unless
to be such as God made them be a crime /;
so minors would be undergoing punishment
till their majority our immigrants into the
State would BE- suffering punishment till
their residence had been continued Tor the
time prescribed by the Constitution aud
the same may be said of unnaturaliZed cjti-
zens. 81 when a qualified clector removed
from the STATE, he would be said properly
(under this view to be punished for such
removal, by loss of the right to vofe-so
removal from one county to another would
also be punishment by a loss of the right to
vote, until he should have been in his new
place of residence for one mouth. This
view (that disqualification to vote is a pun
ishment) wou u make a neglect to register
a crime, punishable by such disqualification.
Aud so a person " no should become insane,
ana therefore, DH the Jaw OF All tlhiilLed
countries, incapable OF crime, would be
undergoing punishment Tor the seyerest
misfortune, as il he were a criminal.
> This argument shows conclusively that
the Disqualification to vote arising from The
conviction OF al crime, is in no
Just sense a punishment Tor the crime, aud
these not within the operation of an eXecu-
i've pardon.
1t must be remembered also that suf-
frage is rather a public duty, than an indi-
vidual right. Ii is conferred on certain
classes, never more than one-fifth of the
community, and denied to all others, not
upon any idea that those upon whom it is
conferred have any superior natural fight
to it over the Others, but because it is
deemed best for the good CT all thar they
alone should exercise it and the others
should not. 1t is a social and conventional
right or duty, conferred by law, and not
an individual and private right inherent
in a human being. II this were not so a
voter would have the right to sell or dis
pose of his vote for his own advantage.
All constitutions and laws regulating sut-
frage proceed on this theory and no other;
and hence all fix in terms a rule by which
the qualifications of voters are determined
This rule is peremptorily fixed so as to in
clude all as voters whom the interest of the
State requires to be such, and to exclude
all, whom, in the main it would be unsafe
10 9uu1lL. 1Ic IuIC uCCGsSdAiiy ddLitlo anu
excludes classes it is not fixed for individ-
ual cases To show how purely conven-
tional is suffrage we have but to consider
the case of a young man, well educated,
honorable and public spirited, lacking one
day OF being twcnty-Cne years old, aud for
| want of that day excluded, and the con-
trasted case of another young man, igno-
rant and debased, and who is only one day
older, ard is on account of that extra day
admitted to vote.
The peculiar phraseology of our constitu-
ton on this subject is in exact accordance
with these views. Art. Z, section 2. includes
as a qualification to vote, "Exem ption from
crimes Art. w. section Il, defines the
crime S, upon conviction of which, the party
is excluded from the class of qualified cleo
tors. All persons are thus excluded who
shall have been convicted of 'bribery, per-
Jury, or other infamous crimes." The ex-
~clHsion is express and unmistakable, and it
is of all who shall have been convicted, etc.
| A person pardoned alter conviction is new
ertheless one who has been 'cOnvicted.'
The pardon relieves him of the punishment
attached, but it does not make him a person
who has not been c0avicted. The exclusion
from suffrage is a part of the constitution
which is the supreme law Of the State. A
statute passed by the Legislature aud APP
proved by the Governor, reversing thii
exclusion, would be unconstitutional ans
of no effect. Certainly it was not intended
to vest in the Governor a power to change
a constitutional rule as to suffrage, whicl
was denied to him and the Legislature to
gether. To say that the Governors pardon
removes this disqualification of conviction
ofan Infamous crime, is in effect. to con
cede TO the Governor a power to chang
the constitution itself.
Strong confirmation of these views vii
be found in the Reconstruction Acts o
Congress. in which. Notwithstanding TIN
Presidents pardon. certain classes engaged
on the Southern side in the late war, wer
excluded from the right of suffrage. Thi
Legislation can only be maintained on tn
foregoing reasoning. The above. refer
alone to convictions in this State.
Yours truly,
] Z. GEORGE.