great object, of the framers of the Constitution of
the United States in confiding this power to the
Executive alone, wag to consolidate responsibility.
Alexander Hamilton, says: "that as the
sense of responsibility is always strongest in pro-
portion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that
a single man would be most ready to attend to
the force of those motives which might plead for
a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt
to yield to considerations which were calculated
to shelter a fit object of its vengeance."
In most of the States of the Union, the power
to pardon, said Mr. U., is confided exclusively to
the Executive departments. It is true that in
the Constitutions of some of the Sales, provi-
sions are inserted requiring the Executives to
report to the Legislature; but in most of the
States the power to pardon belongs exclusively to
the executive departments.
Mr. President, (said Mr. B.,) the proposition
here as I understand it, is to divide the responsibility
of the exercise of the pardoning power,
between the executive and the legislative branches
of the government. It is in effect to say to the
Executive, you can grant pardons and reprieves,
but you are to do so only in concurrence with or
in subordination to the Legislature.
Why is this? Why this distrust of the Execu-
tive ? Gentlemen express the fear, (said Mr.
B,,) that favoritism or prejudice may find their
way into the Executive chamber. Have gentle-
men never heard of favoritism finding its way
into the halls of Legislation. May not the
Legislature be sometimes in danger of being
operated on by motives or feelings inauspicious
to the just and merciful exercise of this preroga-
tive. No, Mr. President, (said Mr B,) if we
desire to have this power safely confided, let it
be left ill the hands of the Governor to be exer-
cised on big responsibility alone.
Mr. Hamilton well says: "The reflection that the
fate of a fellow creatures depends on the sole fiat
of the Executive, would naturally inspire scru-
pulousness and caution. The dread of being ac-
cused of weakness or connivance would beget
equal circumspection, though of a different kind.
On the other hand, as men generally derive con-
fidence from that number they might often encou-
rage each other in an act of obduracy, and might
be less sensible to the apprehension of censure
for an injudicious or affected clemency. On
these accounts one man appears to be a more eli-
gible dispenser of the mercy of the Govern-
ment, than a body of men." This, Mr. President,
(said Mr. B.,) is the best doctrine, and an adher-
ence to it, will guard us against difficulty and
danger.
A word only, (said Mr. B.,) to his friend from
Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spencer,) and he would
have done. That gentleman and myself, have
for many years borne the most intimate and friend-
ly relation towards each other. A kinder heart
does not animate a human bosom than does his.
And yet, Mr. President, (said Mr. B.,) it seem-
ed to me that to-day, an entire change came over
the feelings of my friend. Of all men else I
should have calculated on him to battle for the
privilege of pardon, for the prerogative of mercy. |
But if I understood him correctly, he was not
disposed without much restriction to vest this
power with the Executive. In a case of clear
and undoubted guilt, [said Mr, B. ] my friend, if
I understood him correctly, would not leave the
power of pardon in the hands of the Executive.
That might perhaps be well if it could be sure-
ly known when guilt did actually exist with noth-
ing to alleviate. But how are we to be sure of
this undoubted, unredeeming guilt. May there
not befalse accusations, perjured witnesses, mis-
led juries, inaccurate judgments, inefficient coun-
sel? May there not be mitigating, justifying cir-
cumstances'?
Can you imagine no case, Mr. President, [said
Mr. B..] in which, although the rigor of the law
might demand the offender, the shield of justice
should protect the victim?
You cannot with safety, [said Mr. B.,] restrict
or divide this power to pardon Undents exer-
cise, there is no fear that the guilty will escape.
And by it the innocent may be protected.
Mr. SPENCER replied that he was always pleased
to hear the eloquent bursts of his friend from Bal-
timore county. That gentleman had known him
for a long time, and he seemed to think that he,
[Mr. S,,] had lost some particles of those kind
qualities which he had imbibed from being so
long in instructive association with him. But
his friend from Baltimore county did him injus-
tice. He, [Mr, K.,] had not deviated from his
course. He had said on a former occasion that
there was one class of offences in relation to
which he would take away the power of the Ex-
ecutive to pardon. What was that class of of-
fences? It was bribery. And his aim was to
prevent pardon from being extended, not to the
person who received, but to him who gave, the
bribe. It was against the individual whose cir-
cumstances placed him beyond the reach of cor-
ruption, but who went about with a preconceiv-
ed purpose to corrupt others, that he would arm
the law with its utmost terrors. It was in refer-
ence to these persons that he would withhold the
pardoning power from the Executive. If such
an offence, calmly determined on, and perpetrated
with entire deliberation, were brought home
to a man, would his friend from Baltimore
county tell him, that such a man was a fit subject
for the pardoning power? No. That power
should be exercised towards those who have
been inconsiderately and under some sudden im-
pulses, hurried into a violation of law. This was
the position he had taken and occupied. He
would stand by that pan of the amendment of
the gentleman from Anne Arundel, which re-
stricts the pardoning power in all cages provided
in the Constitution. But he would never give his
vote for the second branch which gives the Le-
gislature unlimited authority to restrict this pow-
er in the hands of the Executive in relation to
other cases.
Mr. DORSEY, by consent, modified his amend-
ment to meet the view of Mr. CRISFIELD, by ad-
ding the words "passed before the perpetration
of the crime."
Mr. SOLLERS, (to the Chair.) Is it in order
to Move the previous question ? |
