Wilmington journal., 1876-02-11
HOLDEN,s PARDON-wHo CAN
GRANT 1T?

Repuenant though it be to speak of
W. w. Holden and Jefferson Davis
in the same breath, it seems necessary
to do SO just now. There are few
people, represented in the press OF the
State notably by the Charlotte Demo.
crat. that seem to be almost as restless
under the punishment inflicted upon
w. w. Holden as is that notorious
criminal himself. So persistent indeed
has the Democrat been in its utter
ances about the remission of the SEN
tencs of the, Court of Impeachment
that took from Holden the rights of
citizenship, that doubt is sugF ested
whether the Democrat thinks it ought
ever to have been inflicted.
It is not our purpose to make any
further comparison between William
W. Holden and Jefferson Davis than
to say that Holden is convicted
criminal, convicte 1 in the open face of
day before the highest civil judicial
tribunal known to the laws OF the State
after full, fair trial; convicted too
by the votes of political friends and
allies as well as by those of his oppo-
nents, and that JET rson Davis st nds
in no such category.
THE government that feared the
opinion of the world so little as to
hang a woman by military commits
sion, did not dare to bring to trial
even, before any tribunal either civil
or military, the man who all agree was
the foremost in rank in at least ia
what it called the great rebellion, upon
any charge great or small.
But it is with William W. Holden
that We have to do just now and not
Jeffe, son Davis. Why should William
W. Holden be pardoned Has he ever
shown in any manner, shape or form,
any sign of repentance Has ne ever
asked for his restoration to the rights
of citizenship as an act of grace or
mercy or pardon FOR crime acknowl-
edged to have Deen committed? =? Has
he not rather always demanded his
restoration as an act of Justice, as ii
reversal of an iniquitous sentence until
the late Constitutional ConveRtion as
semb ed, when Mr.. Badger, warned
by the past, in his speech upon the
| resolution then pending, declared he
asked its passage as an act of pardon !?
| If so we know not when or where it
was. On the contrary, he has expressly
declared he saw no wroLg in what
ho had dore, and under similar cie-
cumstances would pursue like course.
And again, in a recent letter to Mr..
Blaine, read by him in the House of
Representatives during the discussion
on the Amnesty Bill, Holden shows
with equal plainness how little he re-
pents him of his crimes.
| It would be difficult IL the extreme
for man not an expert in such mat
ters to utter so many falsehoods in SO
few lines as Holden did in his letter
to Blaine. He said he wis put out of
Office .'solely because of a movement
he put on foot acc ording to the consti-
tuition and the law to suppress the
bloody Ku-Klux," and that was false;
he defied the constitution, he aet at
Taught the laws and outraged the lib
critics of the people. He said he was
convicted Ivy the democrats of the
State, and tnat was false radicals as
we'll as democrats voted for his con-
victlon. He said the democratic ma
jority in the late convention was OBJ
tanned by fraud, and that was false;
every member of that convention who
took his seat at its organization did so
under the ruling of Judge Settle, WHO,
though Judge, then and there took
occasion to declare himself a member
of the Radical party. He sad the con-
ventien, by strict party vote, refused
20 restore him to citizenship, and that
was false neither the vote for the
resolution for his relief, nor that
| against it, was unmixed radical or un-
mixed democratic. He said he was
the only man in North Carolina
who could not hold Office, and that
was false; every convicted thief in
the penitentiary is equally disqualified
| with himself. Disqualification to hold
Office is perhaps the comnonest pen
atty for crime known to the laws of
the State. The constitution of North
Carolina, constitution made by Hol-
den's own friends, expressly declares
that all persons convicted of treason
or perjury, or of any other Infamous
crime since becoming citizens of the
malpractice in Office, shall be disquali-
fed for holding offics until legally re-
stored to citizenship. Is there any
more reason for restoring Holden to
the rights of citizenship than there is
for restoring any other unrepentant
criminal in or ont of the penitentiary !?
The records of the courts will show
that there are thousands Of criminals
in the State who cannot hold office
So intent, indeed, upon enforcing this
penalty for certain crimes was the
constitution, that it makes itfollow i'm
mediately upon conviction and de-
prives the court of any power to inter
fere with it.
But neither is this the question we
set out to discuss this morning for
even If it was right and proper to par
don Holden there has since the ad-
journment of the Court that inflicted
the sentence. been no body in existence
that had the power to remit it. The
advoeates of his restoration seem to
think otherwise. Let us see how that
is. The constitution expressly de-
clares that call powers not therein del
egated remain with the people," If
therefore the constitution has not del
aOatof1 Tn ANYBODY tho poUor to norJoo