the Executive, notwithstanding its liability to
abuse in his hands He also took up the Consti-
tution of the United States, and read the clause
which gives the pardoning power to the Presi-
dent of the United States. This section is the
same in effect, but is not so well expressed as in
the Constitution of the United States. He hoped
the Convention would not consent to take away
the pardoning power from the Governor. If he
can pardon in cases of murder and the highest
crimes known to our laws, why is he not to be
permitted to pardon in cases of bribery ? For it
would be recollected, his colleague had intro-
duced a restriction on the Executive power to
pardon in cases of bribery. He hoped no authori-
ty would be conferred on the Legislature to re-
strain or take away this power
Mr, SPENCER said he was opposed to the prin-
ciple of leaving so delicate a power to be exer-
cised, subject to the discretion of the Legisla-
ture. He would not vote for such an amend-
ment. The gentleman from Anne Arundel ( Mr.
Dorsey) had referred to the possibility that some
abolition excitement may spring up, and that in
such contingency, it might be important that the
Legislature should have the power to say whether
persons engaged in it should be subjects of the
pardon ing power or not. There was no man,
who would go farther than he (Mr. S.) in punch-
ing agitators of this kind. and yet he could not
yield to the force of such an argument. We
must remember, that this is a subject, which of
all others is most calculated to excite feeling and
prejudice. It is a charge which necessarily ex-
cites the passions of men, and under such a state
of feeling, public indignation might be directed
against an innocent man, and his conviction be
the result. In such cases he preferred to leave
the pardoning power in the hands of the Execu-
tive. who would never pardon unless he were fully
satisfied that the conviction had been brought
about under the influence of excitement and un-
just prejudice. He was opposed to the amendment
of the gentleman from Anne Arundel.
His friend and colleague, [Mr. Grason] re-
ferred to his [Mr. S.'s] amendment, withholding
from the Executive the power to pardon in cases
of bribery. He explained his purpose in offering
that amendment, and drew a distinction between
an offence committed from a sudden impulse, or
in a moment of thoughtlessness, and a crime coolly
and deliberately planned and carried out.—
He had voted for the first branch of the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Anne Arundel, in
order to leave the question open to the Conven-
tion.
Referring again to the offence of bribery, he
stated that it was always perpetrated with de-
liberation The bribe must be deliberately offered.
The party offering must have previously
arranged his plans, sought out his object, and
acted deliberately. In no case where a man
calmly and deliberately conceives a criminal pur
pose and carries the design into execution, ought
the pardoning power to be exercised He was
therefore willing to restrain the Executive in
granting pardons, in cases of convictions against
an individual for giving bribe, unless be was |
satisfied that the convictions were the result of
persecution and without evidence. He would
discriminate too, between the one who gave and
the receiver of a bribe. They were generally
humble, poor and uneducated men, who were
seduced by the temptations which were offered to
them—temptations, which under the circumstan-
ces of penury and want, they could not resist.
Mr. DORSEY said, that lie was struck with the
force of the proposition of the gentleman from
Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield,) and had modified the
second branch of his amendment, to meet the
views of that gentleman. As any legislative restric-
tion. after the perpetration of the crime, of the
pardoning power, would be somewhat in the na-
ture of an ex post facto law. With reference to
the objections of the gentleman from Queen
Anne's, he would reply, and he was sure the gen-
tleman from Carroll, (Mr. Brown,) would agree
with him, there ought to ha some confidence re-
posed in the Legislature. He had heard of the
pardoning power, or one somewhat analogous,
having been abused in the hands of the Executive.
Even since we have met here, a case had occur-
red, in which the Governor had thought proper
to release the sum of eight hundred and fifty-three
dollars due on a debt to the State, from a collec-
tor of taxes, thus indirectly levying taxes to that
amount upon the people, a power which he. (Mr.
D.,) had, under like circumstances, never beard
of, as having been exercised before; and the re-
currence of which he hoped the Convention would
take care to prevent.
In the case to which he had referred, the Go-
vernor could not have acted from any political
feeling, because the collector was awhig, backed,
however, by an opposite and powerful influence.
The reasons assigned by the collector in his ap-
plication for the release, was that in 1844 and
1845, when he was appointed collector, there was
an indisposition in tax payers, to pay their taxes,
and that money was scarce in those years.
Every member of this body knew the indiscreet
manner in which the pardoning power had been
exercised; and he had heard many complaints on
the subject—a general desire prevailed that it
should be restrained. He had proposed no new
restriction. He had left the power to be exacted
as it has existed from 1776. He did not propose
to add any restriction, but would merely leave
the Governor in the position, in which he has in
been since the year since the year 1776; and yet
he was told that we must not touch the power of
the Governor; and one would imagine, from the
manner in which this declaration is made, that
even the Constitution itself has no power to con-
trol it. Sir, the Governor possesses no pardon-
ing power, but as given to him by the Constitu-
tion. Here Mr. D read the section from the
Constitution of 1776.
Because it was supposed that this power had
been abused, complaints have been made again
and again, and he knew that these complaints
came from all portions of the State He had
moved his proposition without reference to any
political party. He had nothing to do with political
parties. He did not care whether the Governor
was a whig or a democrat. But com- |
