Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume I.djvu/464

432 AMNESTY in it, and that it extended to every offence known to the law, and might be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings were taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment; and it said further that the power was not sub- ject to legislative control, and that congress could neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. Though this case is not decisive in respect to the power of granting general amnesty, as the proclamations which have been issued assume to do, the case being one of a special pardon, yet it is at least significant upon the point of the exclusive function of the president in re- spect to pardons in virtue of the constitutional provision, and against the claim that it is to be shared in any respect with congress. In 1868 the constitution was changed by the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. This amend- ment introduced provisions which were thence- forth of a force and validity as high and con- trolling as the original provision itself, and the two articles are therefore now to be construed together. From the considerations which have been already adduced, it should seem that it was believed that the claim of congress to par- ticipate in the pardoning power could be well disposed of only in this way. This provision, it will be seen, expressly brings within the reach and control of congress the cases of the most important offenders in the late war ; but it does not, it is conceived, annul the power of the president to grant pardons and amnesties to others than those who are especially de- scribed, nor does anything in the amendment throw any light on the right construction of the power under the provisions of article second. As to all else relating to that power and its scope beyond that part of it which is reserved to congress by this amendment, we are remitted to the same general considera- tions and arguments which have been here sug- gested. The amendment (July 28, 1868) is in these words : " No person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or elector of president or vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath as member of congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrec- tion or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But con- gress may by a vote of two thirds of each house remove such disability." In January, 1872, in the case of Klein against the United States, the supreme court held doctrines which sustain the positions here taken in respect to the president's power to grant general amnesty under the original provision of the constitution. This case arose before the fourteenth amend- ment was adopted, and it involves the effect and Validity of an act of July 12, 1870 (16 U. S. AMONTONS Statutes, 235), by which congress had attempt- ed to annul the benefits of pardon or amnesty granted by the president, especially with refer- ence to suits by pardoned rebels in the court of claims. The claimant in Klein's case had done certain acts in aid of the rebellion, but he had accepted a pardon under one of the proclama- tions of amnesty, and had taken and not vio- lated the oath of future fidelity which was pre- scribed by it. The act of July 12, 1870, provided that the acceptance of any such par- don should be conclusive evidence of the dis- loyal acts pardoned, and that on proof of such pardon and acceptance, and on account of the very disloyal acts so proved, the court of claims and the supreme court on appeal should decline jurisdiction of any suit on the part of such pardoned rebel. But the court held that con- gress had no power to make any such law, and refused to enforce its provisions. With refer- ence to the repeal in 1867 of the act of 1862 already referred to, Chief Justice Chase says that the repeal was made after, and he fairly implies in consequence of, the decision in the Garland case, where it had been held that the president's power of pardon was not subject to legislation, and that congress could neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The court also sustained the position assumed by President Lincoln in regard to his exclusive authority under the constitution. The court further held that "it is the intention of the constitution that each of the great coordinate departments of the government, the legislative, the execu- tive, and the judicial, shall be in its sphere independent of the others. To the executive alone is intrusted the power of pardon, and it is granted without limit. Pardon includes am- nesty. It blots out the offence pardoned, and removes all its final consequences. It may be granted on condition. In these particular par- dons " (that is to say, under proclamations of amnesty, for the case before the court was one of that sort), " that no doubt might exist as to their character, restoration of property was expressly pledged, and the pardon was granted on the condition that the person who availed himself of it should take and keep a prescribed oath. It is clear that the legislature cannot change the effect of such a pardon, any more than the executive can change a law. The court is required to disregard pardons granted by proclamations on condition, though the con- dition has been fulfilled, and to deny them their legal effect." This the court declined to do, and affirmed the judgment of the court of claims, which had awarded restitution to the claimant. AMCEBA. See ANIMALCULES. AMONTONS, Gnlllanme, a French physicist, born in Paris, Aug. 31, 1663, died Oct. 11, 1705. He was deprived of hearing in early life by dis- ease. It is said that he refused to make any effort to relieve his malady, and devoted him- self diligently to the study of geometry and