![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
0056 taint of any crime that might otherwise be imputed to me, & has rehabilitated me in all my rights, past as well as present; for if it is not, & was not intended to be retro-active in its operation, I certainly, (on the theory that General Butler's order is still operative in my case) cannot now rightfully [[strikethrough]] claim [[/strikethrough]] reclaim & resume my former (& past) right, viz: that of holding the property in question, even although I were to attempt to fortify my claim by holding up the Executive pardon in my hand. But as I have in fact recently resumed possession of my property & do actually hold it under & by your instructions & order, it appears therefore that you at least do not regard General Butler's order as operative in my case. In corroboration of my views as to the nature of the Executive pardon, I ask your attention to the following passages from eminent Jurists. Lord Bacon (Vol. 5, p. 296) says, "It seems agreed that pardon of treason or felony, even after an attainder, so far clears the party from the infamy & all other consequences thereof, that he may have an action against any who shall afterward call him traitor or felon; for the pardon makes him, as it were, a new man." A prominent lawyer of the present day, in commenting on the above passage, says, "All the more modern authorities sustain this view of the law." Russell on Crimes, (Vol. 2d p. 975) says,
Transcription Notes:
----------
Reopened for Editing 2024-04-08 13:44:51
----------
Reopened for Editing 2024-04-08 19:50:03