Viewing page 60 of 249

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Judge Story that no law can abridge the constitutional power of the Executive Department or interrupt the right to interfere by pardon. These views are supported by Chancellor Kent & "Rawle on the Constitution".

The prominent lawyer of the present Day before referred to, in some remarks on the last cited passage, says,

"These authorities abundantly establish the proposition that the general amnesty or special pardon of the President removes all traces of the offence, & makes the offender as if it were a new man."

Now if "all traces" of my offence have been removed, & if I, as to this matter, have been made "a new man", then surely those traces ought no longer to be seen by any once, at least in his official capacity nor affect his official conduct, & I consequently should be entitled to be regarded as occupying the same status (as a citizen of the United States) which I occupied before the late war.

In that status at that day, no one would have thought of resisting my claim to the rent of any property of mine that might [[strikethrough]] to [[/strikethrough]] have been occupied by the Government. But if my claim is now resisted because I was once disloyal, it would seem to me that the Executive pardon is to that extent ignored, & that the "traces of my offence" are by no means removed, however sincerely the President