New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-02-28
Cites Taft Opinions.

"ln this country. from the very first
Presidents have exercised not only th'
power TO pardon in specific cases before
conviction. but even 10 grant general am
nesties. The instances arc collected in Al
opinion OF President Taft, while Solicitor
General. Opinions OF the Attorney Gen
cral. Vol Xxx. pp. S39 ct seq.
They include amnesties by President
Washington I'm 1928, President Adams in
800 and President Madison in 1915. Presi-
dent Hncoln's amnesty OF 1868 may per
haps be thought to depend upon 2 ST. at
Largo 592 and not 10 he 2 precedent,
though Chief Justice Chase indicates n
contrary notion I'm L. s. AIT. Klein. u
Wall 1cS. III
President johnson proclaimed gHn-
crel unconditional amnesty 10 all who had
taken part in the civil War on December
%. 1858. and THIS was held valid 10 forgive
forfoitures even as against a subsequent
legislative repeal l.. s. act Klein. supra.
Armstrong agt. L. s 10 Wall. l5i. Presi-
dent Harrison acted upon the opinion of
his Solicitor General. already mentioned.
and issued a conditional amnesty 10 Nor
mons in 1895 q ST. at Large 1o5S.
In eX parte Garland. Wall. $50. the
Supreme Court recognized the effect Of a
pardon granted by President Johnson 10
restore General Garland. who had never
been convicted to his status as attorney
and counsellor Of the Supreme Court,
though perhaps the discussion was not
strictly necessary TO the disposition Of
the case.
However Justice Fields Language on
page $50 is explicit, and the opinion Of the
minority docs not question the propriety
Of a pardon for offences without convic-
ton.
President jefferson appears 10 have
issued a pardon 10 a proposed witress in
the trial OF Aaron Burr. with q view. as
here. 10 telling the privilege, but. though
the witness refused TO accept il. ! cannot
learn that the question Of privilege was
raised upon the trial itself The Presi-
dent shows however that this practice
was used as early as 1901
1t is suggested that a pardon may not
issue where the person pardoned has not
at least admitted his crime. | need not
consider this. because every one agrees, |
believe. that If accepted, the acceptance
is at least admission enough. 1t is an
admission that the grantee thinks II use
ful 10 him. which can only he in case
ne IS I'm possible jeopardy, and hardly
leaves him in position thereafter TO as
sert it's invahdity for lack of admission.
And SO there arises the second point
in the respondents position, which j.
that. as they refused tho pardon, they
may still maintain the privilege. 1t is
not necessary TO assert that the pardon
has any effect till accepted. l. 5. V. VII
son. Peters 80 1911 Re De Puy, Ben
c07. / will for this purpose accept the
contrary. When. however. the question
q. ig OF privilege the witness only needs
protection. Brown V. Walker. l6l L. s
59l. and he is protected when the means
Of safety lies at hand.
IF he obstinately refuses TO accept n
il would be preposterous 10 let him keel
on suppressing the truth, on the theory
that IL might iniure him. Legal institu-
tions are built on human needs. and are
rot merely arenas for the exercise OF
scholastic ingenuity.
There was a suggestion that the privi-
lege might rest upon the jeopardy OF some
other crime than that pardoned. but un-
less the witness is 10 DO the sole judge
there is 10 basis for that position. In
this circuit We have always insisted that
the court must see some reasonaoie
ground for the witnesses supposed fear
and may inquire so far Brown v. Walker
supra.
The respondents are aojudged 10 De 1T
contempt, and are each fined $500: tney
NAV purge themselves by appearing on
notice before the present or any suose-
ouent grand jury and tesufying fully as
10 the sources OF their information. III
they still persist AZ that lime in refusing
n answer. a commitment may issue IN
addition until they comply.
The fines imposed by Judge Hand are
lust one-half OF those imposed by Judge
Thomas on the persons who committed
the crime OF smuggling. Lucius n. ana
William IAttauer were fined NOo each
and sentenced 20 six months imprison-
yrent and Robert Hetmeyer and Mrs
Edna Alexander were fined Ike amount
These were the four persons mentioned in
Tho Tribunes stories.