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

its acknowledges Tsnssie'''' -
ferring death even to such certain
infamv. This. at least theoretically, IS
right, and q right IL often best tested
in its extreme.
at nay be supposed" the court said
In United States v. Wilson, that no
being condemned TO death would reject
a pardon; but the rule must be the
same In capital cases SIS In misde-
meanor,. A pardon may be condi-
uonsl; and the condition may be more
Objectionable than the punishment IN
ficted BY the judgment"
The case would seem TO need no fur
Their comment, and We have quoted
from it not only for its authority but
for its argument, II demonstrates by
both the necessity OF the acceptance
OF a pardon TO its legal efficacy, and
the court did not hesitate in decision
as we have seen. whatever the alter
native OF acceptance II be
death or lesser penalty. Tbs contrast
shows the right OF the individual
against the exercise Of executive power
rot solicited by him nor accepted by
him.
The principles declared in Wilson '.
United States have endured Tor years;
no case has reversed or modified them.
In ex psrte William Wells, 10 How
3O7, 80, this court said: at was with
/ the fullest knowledge OF the Law upon
the subject OF psrdons and the philoso-
ply Of government in its bearing upon
the Constitution that this court in
structed Chief Justice Marshall" to de-
clare the doctrine Of that case. And
in Commonwealth v. Lockwood 1t was
said By Mr.. Justice Gray. speaking for
/ the Supreme Judicial Court OF msssa-
chusett., he then being a member OF
chat court, Il is within the election OF
n defendant "vhether he will avail
himself Of pardon from the Execu-
tive (be the pardon absolute or conol-
tionsD"; 100 Mass, $50, 500. The whole
discussion OF the learned justice Will
repay a reference. He cites and re-
views the cases with the same accurate
and masterful consideration that dis
tineuished all OF his judicial work, and
the proposition declared was one OF the
conclusions dedueed.
Amnesties and Pardons Diner.
United States v. Wilson, however, IS
attempted to be removed as authority
bv the contention that 10 dealt with
conditional pardons and thai, besides
witness cannot spprehend from his tes-
timony conviction Of guilt, which
conviction he himself has the power
| 10 avert. or be heard TO say that the
testimony can be used adversely TO
him when he himself has the power to
prevent it By accepting the immunity
offered him. In support Of the conten-
lions there is an intimstion Of analogy
between pardon and amnesty. cases
are cited and certain statutes OF the
United States are sdduced whereby I'M
munity was imposed in certain IN
stances and under its unsolicited pro
lection testimony he's been exscted
against the claim OF privilege asserted
BIZ witnesses There is plausioility in
the contention; it disappears upon re-
Fiction. Let us consider the conten-
/ tons in their order.
% To hold that the principle o. the
United States Y. Wilson vas expressed
| only as TO conditional pardons would
/ be TO assert that the language and
/ illustrations which we're used 10 EN-
plastic the principle announced we're
meant only to destroy 1t. Besides, the
pardon passed on was not conditional.
/ II was limited in that, and only in that,
/ IL was confined TO the crime for which
/ the defendant had been convicted and
/ for which he had been sentenced TO
suffer death. This was its emphasis
and distinction. Other charges we're
pending against him, and IL was ex-
pressed that the pardon should not e1-
tend TO them, but such would have been
/ its effect without expression. And we
may say that it had more precision
than the pardon in the pending case.
Wilson had been indicted for 8 specific
statutory crime, convicted and SEN
fenced to suffer death. II was 70
the crime 80 defined and established
that the pardon was directed. In the
case at bar nothing 10 defined. There
Is no identification Of the offences par
doned, and no other clew to ascertain
them but the information incorporated
/ in an article In a newspaper. And not
that entirely, for sbsolution is de-
clared for whatever crimes may have
been committed or taken part IN "in
connection with any other article, mat
ter or thing concerning which he bur
dick may be Intercepted"
1t is hence contended by Burdick
that the pardon is illegal for the abb
sence OF specification, not reciting the
offences upon which il is intended TO
operate; worthless, therefore as i'm
munity. To support the contention
cases are cited.
1t is asserted besides that the par
don i. void, as being outside Of the
power OF the President under the Con-
stitution Of the United States, because
| il was issued before accusation, or con-
viction or admission OF an offence.
This, it is insisted, is precluded By the