inserting after the word "impeachment," in the
second line the following:
And in cases where he may be deprived of
such power by some provision of this Constitu-
tion, or express legislative enactment."
Mr. DORSEY said there were gome cases in
which he thought it indispensible for the Legislature
to hold this power If the Legislature
should think it right to deprive the Governor of
the power of extending pardon in a case where
its exercise would be injurious to the public in-
terest, it would be proper that they should have
the power to do so. There ought to be this re-
strictive power somewhere; the Constitution
had vested it in the Legislature, and there it
should remain. And it was with this convic-
tion that he had proposed this amendment. By
the Constitution of 1776. the pardoning power is
conferred on the Governor, with this express
limitation; and by the act of 1782, ch 42. this
power of restriction was exercised by the Leg-
islature. Have your Governors of late years
become so pure, so eminently trustworthy, that
they should be clothed with all powers, as well
legislative as executive? Such appears the tendency
of our proceedings, and of modern democracy
; it formed no part of the democracy of
olden times.
Mr. SPENCER stated that he had contemplated
an amendment in some respects similar to that
which the gentleman from Anne Arundel had
offered. And if the gentlemen would modify his
amendment, by striking out the words ''an express
legislative enactment " he [Mr. S] would
vote with him. But he was not willing to give
the Legislature an indefinite power to be exercised
at their discretion.
A division of the amendment was ordered.
Mr, SOLLERS save notice of an amendment,
which he would offer when in order.
Mr RIDGELY stated that if he understood the
amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, it purposed to place in the hands
of the Legislature the authority to restrict the
pardoning power in the Governor, whenever in
their discretion, they may see fit to do so. It
therefore, he understood the amendment rightly.
if it was adopted, it would be idle to give the
Governor the power at all. It was idle to give
the Governor the power to pardon offences it
that power was liable to be restricted at the dis-
cretion of the Legislature, who may thus entirely
take away the power from the Governor. It
would, under such a constitutional provision be
perfectly competent for the Legislature, by a
single enactment, to divest the Governor entirely
of the pardoning power, and thus render this
proper constitutional prerogative a mere shad-
ow He did not think the Convention was disposed
to give such a power into the bands of the
Legislature He concurred with the gentleman
from Queen Anne's, [Mr. Spencer] in the view?
be had expressed. He was willing to vote for a
restricting power in the Legislature in such cases
as are specified in the Constitution, He ex-
pressed a hope that the question would be deci- |
ded, and that the House would never consent to
give the Legislature an unlimited authority to
restrict the power in the hands of the Execu-
tive, but only in reference to the cases restricted
in the Constitution.
Mr. DORSEY contended that the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) had as-
sumed more than he could sustain. The Gov-
ernor has no constitutional power. He did not
offer his amendment with a view to deprive the
Governor of the pardoning power. But to leave
the pardoning power in the game condition it al-
ways heretofore exited It appeared to him
very important that there should be a power in
the Legislature—an authority as there always
heretofore had been—to restrict its abuse when-
ever there is danger of its exercise to the pub-
lic injury. He referred to the possibility of
abolitionists persevering in abducting our slaves
and attempting to murder their masters when
seeking to recover them, and the Governor of
the State being tinctured with abolitionism, an
event by no means impossible, under the present
mode of electing him, were induced to grant nol-
le prosequis in all such cases, would you deprive
the Legislature of the authority always heretofore
possessed by it under our present constitu-
tion, of prohibiting the pardoning power from be-
ing exerted. He insisted that in such a rase, the
power ought to be in the hands of the Legislature,
to restrict the Governor. He believed
there was no danger that the power of the Legis-
lature would be exercised except in extreme
cases, where its necessity was apparent.
The question was then taken on the first branch
of said amendment, being in these words, " and
in cases where lie may he deprived of such pow-
er by some provision of this constitution "
And it was agreed to.
The question recurred on the second branch of
the proposition.
Mr. DORSEY. This is a very important ques-
tion. I call for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRISFIELD expressed his willingness to go
for the amendment, if its operation was limited
to future cases.
Mr CRISFIELD desired to ask the gentleman
from Anne Arundel if he intended that after an
individual had been convicted of a crime, and
had gone to the penitentiary, the right of the Go-
vernor to pardon was not complete? Was it his
intention that in such a case where the punishment
of the crime is inflicted, the Legislature may
interfere to check the pardoning power in the
hands of the Executive ? If the gentleman from
Anne Arundel would confine his amendment to
such eases as may hereafter occur, which may
arise after the passage of the act creating the offence,
he would be willing to vote for it But
without some limitation, he could not give it his
support
Mr. GRASON adverted to what he regarded as
a defect in the amendment of the gentleman from
Anne Arundel, and referred to the debates in the
New York Convention, and the opinions expressed
by Kent, Spencer, and other eminent judges,
that the pardoning power ought to be vested in |
