New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-26

/ sdered, and the facts OF the case gave
them = peculiar and interesting sppli-
cation.
President Jackson's Pardon Cited.
There were a number Of indictments
against Wilson and one Porter, some
Of which were for obstructing the
mall and others for robbnr the mail
and putting the life OF the carrier in
jeopardy. They were convicted on one
/ OF the latter indictments, sentenced
10 death and Porter was executed IN
pursuance OF the sentence. President
Jackson psrdoned Wilson. the pardon
reciting that il was for the crime for
which he mad been sentenced TO suf-
Ter death. RENTING such penalty with
the express stipulation that the par
don should not extend TO any judgment
which might be had or obtained against
him In any other case or cases then
pending before the court for other
offences whcrewith he might stand
charged.
To smother Of the indictments Will
son withdrew his plea Of not guilty and
pleaded guilty. Upon being srr,irned
for sentence the court suggested the
propristy OF inQuiring as TO the effect
Of the pardon, although alleged TO re-
late 10 conviction on another indict-
m.nt." Wilson was asked IL he wished
TO avail himself Of the pardon, to which
he answered, in person, that "he had
nothing to say, and that he did not
wish In any manner 10 avail himself.
in order TO avoid sentence In this par
tieulsr case, OF the pardon referred 10"
The judges we're opposed in opinion,
and certified to this court for decision
two propositions which were argued by
the District Attorney OF the United
States, with one only OF which we are
concerned. It was As follows: 80. That
the prisoner can, under this conviction,
derive no advantage from the pardon,
without bringing the same judicially
before the court by plea, motion or
otherwise There was no appearance
for Wilson. Attorney General fancy
(sfterward Chief Justice OF this court
argued the case on behalf Of the United
States. The burden Of his argument
was that pardon, 10 be effective, must
be accepted. The proposition was nee
esssry TO he established, as his conten-
ton was that plea OF the pardon was
necessary 10 arrest the sentence upon
Wilson. And he said, speaking of the
pardon, "lt is grant TO him, Wilson;
1t is his property; and he may accept
it or not SIS ne plessss," and, further,
ut is insisted that unless he pleads il,
or in some way claims its benefit,
thereby denoting his acceptance OF the
proffered grace, the court cannot notice
II nor allow IL TO prevent them from
passing sentence. The whole current
Of authority establishes this principle"
The authorities were cited, and IL was
declared that "the necessity OF plead
ing il, or claiming il in some other
manner, grows out OF the nature OF
the grant. He must accept it,"
There can be no doubt, therefore, OF
the contention Of the Attorney General,
and we have quoted it in order 10 esti-
mate accurately the response Of the
court 20 it. The response was com
plete and considered the contentious. in
two aspects: % A pardon as the act
OF the President, the Official act un-
der the Constitution, and 90 the atti-
tude and right OF the person to whom
il is rendered. or the former it was
said that the power had been eXer-
cised from time immemorial by the
executive Of that nation England,
whose language is our language and
10 whose judicial institutions ours bear
close resemblance; we adopt their
principles respecting the operation and
effect of the pardon and look into their
books for the rules prescribing the
manner in which it is to be used by
the person who would avail himself
Of il.
From that source Of authority and
principle the court deduced and de-
clsred this conclusion: Pardon is an
act Of grace proceeding from the power
intrusted with the execution of the
laws which exempts the individual on
whom il is bestowed from the punish.
ment the law inAicts for a crime b.
has committed. 1t ia the prirate
(itslics ours) though Official act Of the
executive magistrate delivered TO the
individual for whose benefit it is in
tended" In emphasis Of the official
act and its functional deficiency II not
accepted by him to whom it is rendered,
1t was said, "a private deed not COM
muncsted 10 him, whatever may BE-
its character, whether pardon or re-
lease, is totally unknown and cannot
be acted on"
Acceptance Of Pardon Essential.
Turning, then, TO the other side
that is. the effect OF a pardon on him
TO whom it is offered and completing
its description and expressing the con-
dition Of its eonsummstion-thls was
said:
"A pardon is a deed to the validity
OF which delivery is essential and de-
livery is not complete without accept
snce. It may then De rejected by the
person TO whom 1t is rendered, and if