The question being then taken by yeas
and nays, the motion was agreed to—yeas
41, nays 33—as follows ;
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Baker, Barron
Berry, of Baltimore county, Brooks, Carter
Cushing, Daniel, Davis, of Washington,
Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway, Greene
Hatch, Hoffman, Hopper, Keefer, Kennard,
King, McComas, Murray, Negley, Nyman,
Parker, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell
Schley, Schlosser, Scott, Sneary, Stirling,
Stockbridge, Swope, Sykes, Valliant—41.
Nays—Messrs. Belt, Bond, Brown, Cham-
bers, Crawford, Cunningham, Dail, Davis
of Charles, Dent, Duvall, Gale, Henkle,
Hollyday, Horsey, Jones, of Cecil, Jones, of
Somerset, Lansdale, Larsh, Lee, Marbury,
Markey, Mayhugh, Mitchell, Miller, Morgan,
Mullikin, Parran, Peter, Smith, of Dorches-
ter, Todd, Turner, Wilmer, Wooden—33.
The question was upon the adoption of the
order.
Mr. MILLER. It is perfectly well known
that under the present constitution the execu-
tive has the power to pardon all offences
which have been committed against the laws
of the State. The order which is now under
consideration is a recommendation that the
governor should exercise the executive clem-
ency in behalf of a certain class of offenders.
If the governor should take this order as an
imperative direction, or look upon it as im-
posing a sort of imperative obligation upon
him, the duty thereby imposed would go to
this extent. It is perfectly well known that
a great many offences of this class have been
perpetrated by a portion of the colored peo-
ple of the State. Under existing laws those
negroes, instead of being confined in the
penitentiary or jail, have been ordered to
be sold for a term of years, and purchasers
have made their purchases of those negroes,
and have paid their money for them. Do you
wish that this convention should recommend
to the governor the pardon of such cases as
those? if the convention desires to go that
far they can do so, I merely desire to call
the attention of the convention to the extent
to which the order goes.
Mr. PUGH. I look upon this order as
meaning simply what it staples in words. It
is simply a recommendation to the governor.
And I cannot for the life of me see bow this
convention could do less than simply reconn-
mend to the governor that these people, in
the opinion of this convention, are no longer
criminals, as this convention has decided that
slavery shall no longer exist in this State.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. Except for crime.
Mr. PUGH. Certainly. This is simply a
recommendation to the governor. He is not
bound by it. It is simply an expression of
opinion upon the subject. It may not be
noticed. An expression of opinion made by
this convention, upon a former occasion, to |
the President of the United States and mili-
tary commanders, was not noticed much.
This is merely an expression of opinion on
the part of this convention in regard to this
class of offences. The governor will act as
he deems best. This is not binding upon
him. It is simply a recommendation to him,
calling his attention to the fact. The gov-
ernor, in spite of anything we might do here,
has the right to pardon all criminals. We
neither add to nor take from that right by
the adoption of this order. If circumstances
appear to him such as to justify the exercise
of executive clemency, he can exercise it.
For my part I think it is perfectly proper for
the convention to pass this order.
The PRESIDENT announced that the hour
had arrived for proceeding to the order of
the day, being the final reading of the con-
stitution as a whole.
On motion of Mr. ABBOTT,
The order of the day was postponed until
eleven o'clock.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The circumstances
under which the executive is to exer-
cise this prerogative of pardoning criminals
are regulated by law. Application for the
pardon must be made. The application
must be published in the newspapers, objec-
tions are to be filed by a particular day, and
then the governor acts upon the application
according to his discretion, and what is due
to public justice and the good order of so-
ciety. This order conflicts with the law, by
recommending to the governor to violate
these provisions of the law, and to order a
wholesale delivery of a certain class of of-
fenders. I think we better leave the matter
where it is. Cases will come before the gov-
ernor upon their merits - and in view of all
that has been done the governor, no doubt,
will discharge his duty faithfully. I am op-
posed to this interference with the law which
regulates the mode in which the governor
shall exercise the prerogative of pardon.
Mr. STIRLING. It strikes me that my friend
from Somerset (Mr. Jones) is a little inac-
curate in regard to the operation of that
part of the constitution which affects the par-
doning power. The constitution does say
that the executive, before granting any par-
don, shall give notice that he is about to take
the case up, and in regard to any applica-
tions for pardon, shall keep them on file so
that they may be inspected by the general as-
sembly. But the constitution never meant
to say that the governor should never pardon
any one, except when be was requested to do
so. It never meant to take away from the
governor the power to initiate the proceeding
upon his own motion, if one person peti-
tions for a pardon the governor may set the
case down for a hearing. But if nobody pe-
titions for it, the governor, knowing that
public opinion is in favor of it, can still ex-
ercise his authority in that respect. The ex- |
