*1 307 Ex William Wells. purte: to whether fact I do not consider of inquire, necessary and a Call absolute sale Me Stewart perfect conveyance by, from the of not relieve completing it agree- did duty heirs of their nor do I consider ancestor; necessary inquire ment had a whether, sale Stewart .good conveyance, having into to cut off case possible unpublished equi- go chancery there whether ; ties nor do I consider it was inquire necessary the decree. Those ques- sufficient evidence support the circuit of court of tions were all to the' jurisdiction been revised in the su- county, might Vanderburgh court of Indiana. preme Those had entire courts jurisdiction parties I am decree cause, and its collaterally impeached. concurs this that Mr. Justice authorized to DANIEL say opinion. i In
Ex Wells, Pet Parte: of William Matter Corpus. for tion a Writ of Habeas contains two, section States, The second article of Constitution of the United grant ami shall-have reprieves “The President provision, namely: for cases of offences United States, impeachment.” except under to'a grant the President can conditional person Under power, pardon an' for into offering that sentence to commute imprisonmеnt death, that right to contend he has no pardon 'life. If this is the convict; accepted by justifiable in re- below was it void. And the court , is absolute and fusing condition ground. discharge when the was placed upon prisoner, application be construed pardoning, must The'language in the as to the used Constitution and in the States England the exercise of Kevolution, prior Constitution. prior adoption of the and in States. England The manner which it was exercised in many explained of the language President that of the Constitution is such that language being in terms is not one of but is conferred ; inference, conditionally to as well absolute which includes pardons,” reprieves pardons. __ duress in the .given under was The acceptance, convict, condition, (cid:127) legal of that term acceptation a motion founded oh a corpus, This for writ habeas circumstances, viz:— Wells, forth the petition setting following term; Wells at the December .murder, That. was convicted 1851, df the of Washington, criminal court the county court to be Columbia, of. said District and was sentenced 23d on the 23d on which said hanged April, April, “ Fillmore, Mr. then President the United granted condition convicted, of the offence of which was that he be life, his natural imprisoned during life death commuted to hereby imprisonment at penitentiary Washington.” William Wells. That while under the constraint of duress imprisonment minas he per and duress subscribed an acceptance the condition annexed. with *2 That on to the circuit court the 18th he April, applied corpus, of Columbia, District for a writ of habeas which cause and that court into the was inquire granted, proceeded of his imprisonment. That the had circuit court decided that the President him to the death, to commute the and remanded confined. where he ever sinee been penitentiary, corpus. He issue a writ of habeas therefore court to prayed In this Pet. ease, Watkins, as in the case of pórte ex (7 571,) had been it was laid the. in the'case admitted that all facts existing before if the"habeas would appear exactly had so that the corpus returned; awarded and judg- duly was ment court were called which the pronounce, pre- upon that to be a full upon hearing cisely ought pronounced accord- writ of and it was corpus; return to the habeas upon bar. so at the ingly argued the court to that case that be seen also reference will (cid:127) the decided was pronounced upon judgment Watkins, exercise of and was an Mr. petition appellate of original jurisdiction. sustained Mr. Charles was corpus The for habeas petition Mr. Cushing, Jones for the and opposed by Lee petitioner, Attorney- General. court and is so opinion fully'discussed and Justice McLean Mr. of Mr. Justice opinions dissenting Curtis, give arguments it is not necessary thought of counsel. of the court. delivered the Mr. Justice WAYNE the District of murder was convicted The petitioner the 23d of 1852. sentenced Columbia, April, hung a conditional to him pardon. President Fillmore granted “ and sufficient : For divers good material of it is follows part him, the said unto reasons I do grant hereby granted, he was con- of which offence William Wells, his natu- during that he be imprisoned condition victed— commuted death the sentence of life; hereby ral On of Washington.” life in the for penitentiary
imprisonment the same “ I in these words: was accepted day an- with condition above and within pardon, hereby accept nexed.” cirpuit made An petitioner application
DECEMBEE'TEEM, "William Wells. for a Columbia, corpus. writ habeas of the District It was and .is now before this court by way appeal. rejected, The second article the constitution the United States,- “ The two, .section contains this : shall have provision President for offences reprieves pardons United in cases of except impeachment.” Under President granted reprieves power, since the commencement of present government. have been its enacted, exercise Sundry provisions regulating virtue the constitutional of con- army navy, to make rules and for the gress regulations government No statute has ever been army navy. passed regulating in cases of conviction the civil authorities. such cases, In the President has acted under the as it is ex- exclusively in the constitution. pressed case This raises question, whether President con- can a conditional to a convicted stitutionally grant sentenced murderer, thát im- hung, offering change life; does, and if it be accepted prisonment convict, *3 it is him, whether n'ot a court to binding upon justify him a corpus, refuse writ- for habeas applied ground is that the and the absolute, the condition of it void. pardon counsel for contends that the valid, is prisoner pardon to remit of the court for his execution, and entirely the condition annexed and accepted by It is also said that a President illegal. such prisoner, granting a assumes not a conferred power .constitution— pardon a existence, that‘he new into and sen- legislates punishment tences convict to it; suffer in this violating way, legisla- tive оf the powers judicial government, province first, of the enact for the laws offences punishment the United and that to sentence con- judiciary, for violations of laws, victs those to them.' It is said according the, the exercise of to be such as prerogative, king England in such can be cases; that, under our there system, foundation, United other a President States empowering to show the same clemency. We think this is. a the want due con- mistake from arising sideration word It is legal meaning pardon. sup- that it was meant used reference to with posed exclusively a absolute criminal from the exempting .an the-law inflicts for a crime he has committed. which word, not the or of the either sense meaning common first, or in In the it -is re- law. -parlance forgiveness, lease, remission. it be one offence, for an whether Forgiveness for or which it is liáble in otherwise. person committing William Wells. said, it is I as where pardon Release-from pecuniary obligation, to' debt. Or it is the remission of a your penalty, -you- Of an .one himself or non-performance subjected á contract, money or when penalty undertaking statutory it is incurred, has been functionary public remitted (cid:127) . to remit it. having the-, as un- In- law it has different were well meanings, othei; derstood when' the constitution was legal- any made n word in the constitution now is.
" - kind Sueh of its a. without pardon designation thing books mind, not known the law. Time earliest out denomina law, of the has its particular English every pardon ab or tion. are They general, special particular, some cases, and in solute, not statutory, necessary some Sometimes, of course. though,.an-express grántáble n oneis a another, such as in appellee, approver are in cases, in certain or where many principal accessary indictment, because is. felony dicted several in all .in the ‘same for-felony pf for one of and-the them, párdon joint, anfl mentioned,'in them'is a it; for all, though -they may at a certain or it for a fine, day, sureties discharges payable if for the or sureties and the peace, king pardons principal; We after forfeiture. might/mention pardoned, principal mentioned are those other incidents legal -pardon, the extent or illustrate the of pardon, enough"to par President’s -meaning reprieves -power dons. It meant that to be used according and these States law; as it had been used in England, power, not because was colonies;, prerogative were when-they when the but as incidents of the circumstances of doubtful if to pardon, particularly as made it such uncertainties case disclosed (cid:127)' criminal; should have béen a conviction there be a mitiga are such as to show that there might "when they of vin tion of the without the,obligation, lessening Without such a clemency, dicatory justice. *4 or 'exercised some government, department functionary by be and its morality,'and would most in deficient political imperfect are tempered whose always attribute judgments' deity the, -of law knowledge And it was fullest' with the. mercy. with of government upon philosophy pardons, instructed this-eourt constitution, in. its when upon bearing Wilson, v. States in The United Chief Justice Marshall say, time imme exercised from 7 Pet. 162: As the-power of, is our that nation' language morial executive whose by , bear close institutions ours and whose judicial language, the operation their resemblance, 'respecting we principles adopt 311 Ex'parte: William Wells. . of a look and effect into their books for the rales manner in which it is to be used prescribing by person would avail himself of it.” who We still so, think that the in the constitution, used language conferring
. be must pardons, construed with reference reprieves grant at to its the time its At the time of our meaning adoption. from Britain, Great had been exercised separation as chief executive. Prior to king,' revolution, by colonies, in effect under the laws of were accus- England, tomed to the forms, it in various as they may exercise found books. were, course, English They as occurred, occasions constituted applied part At the time of the jurisprudence Anglo-America. adoption constitution, American statesmen were conversant with laws and familiar with the ex- England, prerogatives ercised the crown. Heneé, when words to by constitution, were used in the to the mind the they conveyed exercised crown, or its authority English represen- tatives in the colonies. At that time both Englishmen' Americans attached the same word In meaning pardon. the convention which framed the constitution, no effort was to define or made its it was limited change meaning, although in cases of impeachment. We must then the word the same give meaning prevailed here at the time it -found a England in the con place stitution. This with the laid conformity down principles this court in Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 and in 264, 280; Pet. 8 case, Flavell’s Watts & 197; Sargent, Attorney-General’s brief A is said Lork Coke be a pardon work where-' mercy, attainder, either before sentence or king, conviction, or after, crime, offence, execution, forgiveth any punishment, right, or debt title, the ecclesiastical, Inst. duty, temporal And (3 233.) coronation oath “that he will cause king’s justice executed It is mercy.” conditional, as ex frequently tend what terms he and annex mercy upon to his pleases, .condition on the bounty precedent subsequent, performance will 274, Litt. validity depend. (Co. 2 276; Hawkins Ch. Black. Com. 45; And if the 4Ó1.) § felon does not the condition, of'-the perform it will be ,yoid; and he to the bar and re altogether brought manded, to suffer the to which he was originally Moore, sentenced. Cole’s case, 466; Abr., Bac. E. In Pardon, the case of Packer and others —Canadian Meeson prisoners —5 & Lord decided for if the condition Welsby, Abinger which alone the void, granted *5 .312- COURT'. parte:
Ex William Wells. condition, lawful, but be void. also were must prisoner' cannot .If-the it, did not to he assent nor submit to transported, to if, the benefit assented have of pardon having —or re- revocable, we must- it, his assent consider case to b'e set at tracted liberty; application unable avail himself - equally pardon. -he n - But to the are limitations. there pardoning . offence cannot, license, make an dispunish- king previous by any malum, e. se, itself, i. unlawful in which is being against able be in- as to nature, or so far -the law against public good at law. of this kind would dictable common A C. void, Hawk. reason the common and therefore (2 good,' § 37, keep.the So he 28.) recognizance cannot"release' other of all his sub- name, another with with- lieges peace generally because it is for the benefit' safety king, after suit been Nor, Inst. popu- jects, brought 238.) (3 action, can part discharge- king ;) lar informer’s to the Inst. 238 and if the be given action party (3 penalty, grieved, can the Nor same, Inst. 237.) king discharge (3 nuisance', it would because for a common king, it be- it, a redress take the means of unless away compelling- is to the and not a in a case where the fine the forfeiture king, 37, 5 C. 33 Chit. Burn. 2. ; Hawk. grieved.' party § ’ also restrained And this by particular 2,c. settlement, 12 & 13 Will. III. Eng.; statutes." the.act By to an under seal is no pleadable great impeachment Parliament, but after the articles impeach the- Commons determined, have been heard'and pardon. ment - constitution, eases impeachment -in our- excepting provision taken out the- of the President evidently same. Nor statute, and-is an from improvement extend to the habeas cor does England pardon- _á to send premuniré act; 31 Car. II. c. makes pus é'éas, &c., to1 out prison England, -beyond .subject any be in .so shall further .offending person provides any also’ are grantable king’s pardon. cаpable as There discre exercise of of common without king’s right, offence, or penal ; enacting tion as where statute creating a( immunity holds -.out future promise punishment, ties-for.its of their associates.. -conviction to aid in the accomplices abso have a. do right When so they accomplice's voluntarily, Also, C. 766. king’s 1 L. Chit. lutely when^by their discovering are immunity promised proclamation, on. case, Rudd’s apd them, are the means convicting a'ccomplices eases, in- these Leach, 1 334; except Cowp. accom :usual, to- phrase according though admitted. plices, William Wells. evidence,” have absolute claim or to' a “king’s legal right *6 an have claim to equitable if they pardon, upon pardon. full and fair disclosure of the trial a of one of joint the guilt his associates is made. He cannot and it in bar of them plead for such offence, indictment use it to off the may put time order for a trial, give apply pardon, (Rudd’s in Leach, So, 1 case, 331; conditional Cowp. 115.) pardons by do not the or exile as a commutable permit king transportation unless the same been for provided punishment, by legislation. 5 39 c. 4 IV. c. a84, See Eliz. & Geo. consolidation all the laws of offenders from transportation Greаt regulating Britain. shown, the citation of authorities, the Having many lung’s conditional pardons, with the restraints power power, grant upon n when also offences and crimes are grantable and when has an course, equitable for' party right apply to show,' we now proceed decisions of some of the States of this Union, the courts that' have they expressed coincident with what been stated to be the law of opinions more and how the England, particularly pardoning power may them the exercised of the States, in con- governors whose stitutions clauses to them the giving power grant par- dons, in terms those identical with used in the constitution of States. United In the constitution of the State of 1790, it is Pennsylvania, article, in the 2d section 9, declared that the shall have governor to remit fines and power dons, penalties, grant reprieves par- cases of impeachment. jexcept .„ Justice, said in Flavel’s 8 Watts case, & Sargeant, Sergeant, “ several were made .propositions convention which the constitution of to limit and formed control the exercise the executive, but were pardon by overruled “ Now, left as it stood.” (cid:127)and provision is better principle .the than definition of terms settled tion we and construe- legаl mentioned in our constitution and legal powers laws; . n must resort no act of common when assembly, or or settled has altered their judicial interpretation, usage, meaning.” to show the nature Then of condi- application proceeding tions, the learned remarks: so And make judge may king to a man of life, charier- condition. A upon therefore, an act of such a nature as that pardon; condition, common law it has same upon may and it nature follows that operation .Pennsylvania, condition, annex to a whether subse- governor pardon any And it forbidden law. lies quent precedent,
VOL. XVIII. [27]
314
parte:.
Wells.
William
condition is not
condition;
if the
per-
to perform
grantee
remains
full
formed,
original
vigor
into effect.”
carried
Smith,
add
v.
case we
those
the State
To this
Bailey’s
2d volume of
case,
also
283, 288;
Addington’s
S. C. Rep.
Hunt,
also
also that' of the
ex parte;
516;
same reporter, p.
S. C. 1 Parker
Potter,
Observer, 177;
v.
N. Y. Legal
People
v. Geo.
case of The United
4;
States
Criminal
Reports,
the júrisdiction, court'. McLEÁN dissenting. Mr. Justice murder, in the- of Wells convicted of District was William 1852; the 23d and sentenced Columbia, April, hung-on Fillmore President on which day granted “ sentence death follows: for his acceptance, life, for commuted to the penitentiary, is hereby imprisonment was same this On the accepted,, at day Washington.” “ within pardon, I the above and as follows: with accept This hereby Wells, condition annexed.” acceptance signed now claims Wells and witnessed warden.' jailer and void, is and the null absolute condition is from im entitled to" that, discharge consequently, - - . prisonment. circuit court of the was made this in. case Application and on corpus, for a habeas' of Columbia District by'petition records of that on the was made the. following petition entry “ convicted, in the circuit court Wells, William court: who was the 23d'of district, murder, and sentenced hung commuted, was on that 1852, which sentence day April, to that of life of the United imprisonment President before District, brought in the penitentiary having court, after corpus, habeas hearing court on a writ-of 'that counsel, and mature deliberation thereupon arguments be remanded that the said Williám Wells do order had; President the- that'the the court being opinion penitentiary, death has the United States commute life, penitentiary.” to that imprisonment has been to this court corpus presented, -for habeas A petition and it now before merits, its has been case argued - - us for consideration. here, as an original application, case brought This circuit from the decision of the of an the nature court. appeal same effect, but in form, brings It subject .an appeal court on the circuit us, decision before with the down, be con- laid that the corpus, .principles habeas sidered; - (cid:127) - :, Peters, the court Watkins, Upon ex say . In parte and been have arisen facts several questions' state of the -nature, the cir its ;one, bar; preliminary at argued, under whether, This at the suggеstion award, case, court possess júrisdiction cumstances of. 'are of consideration, we full the writ';' *9 TE&M, 1855. 317- parte: Ex William. Wells. court do The
the whether it be the turns possess jurisdiction. question upon this, an exercise it/is ? If original appellate jurisdiction former, then, is one riot the cases present constitution allows this court exercise original the writ must be denied. v. jurisdiction, Madison, Marbury Cranch, 137; 1 1 Peters’s Condensed 267. If the latter, Rep. awarded, it then since the act of sec. 14, judiciary has authorized issue the court it. clearly “ This was Hamilton, decided in case ex 3 parte Dall. 17; ex Bollman parte Swartwout, Cranch, & 4 ex 75; and parte 7 Whéat. 38. doubt was, whether, in the Kearney, actual before court, case jurisdiction exercised was sought it since into question, original, brought validity of capias the original ad but the process satisfaciendum, present the, of detainer of under it. further prisoner reflec right Upon >. tion, however, the doubt has béen removed.” case, In court considered Watkins in under custody court, awarded the circuit and that whether was process the; so before question court; if rightfully very court should remand would exer prisoner, clearly of an cise The same remark jurisdiction.” appellate applies force and effect case equal with before us. In- this case the Wfells question whether is de- rightfully tained, under the order of the circuit in virtue com- the President, mutation of sentence and which original has circuit court held to be a detention. legpl is not that there is difference, be- perceived principle, It case tween case of Watkins. This court has no to revise, in this circuit form, the power under judgment but, in a criminal as in the case; of Watkins, case decide whether individual held We may by legal custody. is said the convict now in under the sen prison original of the court. far tence So as that sentence the man is goes, to have been insisted April, presumed hung had the President from the sentence death. reprieve , admitted; This On reprieve granted. act been done, inconsistent with re contrary, entirely as that a fixed prieve, only suspends period. confinement, of death commuted, has been to hard labor life. It is a during penitentiary perversion of the facts that Wells has been* Presi say reprieved nor can it be said that he is now ; dent in confinement under a of death. The sentence of death commuted has been for confineriaent. Since that sentence has been April, if effect; for, the President commute had abrogated sentence is at crime, an end. The is' detained in сulprit
27* Wells. William *10 President,' under this- commutation of prison circuit do, the- remanded court held he had the power in- and whether legal, prisoner ground; sen- corpus. on the habeas It does not reach original quiry That, as the tence of considered only the court. and, of if the President had commutation; ground a Is not this Wells is it, make the detention illegal. legiti- of ? It has been held corpus mate a on habeas inquiry court, and this circuit a detention legal the habeas corpus, us on court is before the circuit brought cause detention. only article of constitution The second section of the second shall President have “the declares, the United States for offences pardons reprieves grant in cases United except impeachments.” constitution, in as used of the word pardon, meaning It often decision. has court for never come before this in decided the' States may governor cases the these the punishment. by commuting under special if pro- acted not uniformly, generally, governor or on the State, princi- of the visions in the constitution laws is the case the State. This of the law adopted by common ples in New other States. Ohio, and York, many Maryland, that the word pardon It is the attorney-general, argued by to the construction in reference used, constitution, was derived our system to it in from'whence given England, exercised the British and that powers laws practice; a construction necessarily under the term pardon sovereign adopted one, be a sound with the term. If this view that of office in The executive England merit this tained novelty. enter- that doubts different, may so country widely chief magis- whether it be safe for republican would laws,-to be influenced is the of the trate, who creature British Their of the sovereign. leading power exercise exer- their their are as different in origin powers respective nature be found will safer rule of construction cise. A and Whilst prerogatives of our own government. principles English history, are and occasionally, of the crown great, the President has for the more' than match parliament, been no' the constitution and are not powers given these are limits all his acts beyond laws country; void. null and importance is another consideration paramount There under the federal govern- We have this question. regard common-law offences, powers nor common-law ment no said our chief and the same courts; in our may punish ,3.19 1855-. parte: William Wells. It would be indeed if our magistrate. strange criminal highest courts should disclaim all common-law powers-in the-punish-' ment of offences, whilst our President should claim and exercise powers convicts. pardoning the' overrides commutation law and the judg- ments of courts. It new, and, be, substitutes an' un- may defined for that which the law prescribes specific in fact, law, penalty. suspension substituting some other executive, which, to the seem to be more reasonable and It is true the substituted proper. punish- ment' must be assented cqnvict; but the exercise of circumstances, under the be a judgment,' inade- very quate protection for his rights. If the exercise of authoriz- controlled power, by life, confinement for as a substitute for the ing solitary punish- of death, ment so offences, other would be *11 line of be unobjectionable; would be certain, action would abuses the this rests in power where the discre- prevented. of the executive, tion not as exercise, to its but as to the only, and kind df substituted, it .not seem degree punishment does a fit be to be exercised over a to. power people- only laws. To of a convict, a speak contract, to suffer a punishment by not law, known to the is it, nor authorized by strange language in Where of laws. the law sanctions such government an there can no arrangement, when the objection; obligation to suffer arises from the force aof it is a contract, only singular instrument executive power.
Who can foresee the excitements and convulsions which may arise in our future The be between a history. struggle may executive an incensed In such usurping people. struggle, executive, right, claimed one substituting 'punish- become by under the another, pardoning power, may ment dangerous must recollected that popular "this. rights. - be exercised, casés, but also in power may only capital misdemeanors, all offences laws of embracing' punished by Banishment, or congress. other modes of punishment, bemay substituted and inflicted, at the discretion of' national exec- utive. I cannot consent executive power, enlargement'of individuals, acting upon restrained rights , and guided by positive law.. I President, doubt the under the power pardon, remit but this consists in in- penalty párt, shortening‘the time of fine, of' amount or in imprisonment, reducing the other. This acts releasing' entirely.from directly one.-or court,-under'the tire upon law, strictly ,SUPREME 'William Wells. exercise of the pardoning power lessening degree called for mistaken facts on the
punishment, by trial, or new have since ones which become known. case of the The United States Wilson, 7 v. Pеt. 150, has been referred to attorney-general, sanctioning -But the remarks pardons. the in that case arose on and not on pleadings, President.' He had Wilson, but had pardoned not been pleaded, before, the court motion or otherwise, and brought the court be considered, held.that could not unless it was before it. In that case the chief said: brought judicially justice “ constitution President, gives terms, the general for offences reprieves, United States.” “ And he has been exercised from time says, immemorial the executive of that nation whose language our and to whose institutions ours bear a close language, judicial resemblance, their we principles, adopt respecting operation and effect of a and look into their books for the rules manner which is to be used prescribing who person would avail of it.” himself And he on to show that goes like defence, a court to other must be to enable pleáded it. There is in the case coun- nothing .act President', tenances the as in this case is contended, to commute the of death for confinement life during chief said, penitentiary. justice pardon may conditional,” reference to grants England, of States. be no governors doubt, There where one substituted, cаn under the for another—>as laws banishment England, return, death —if convict shall arrested on the the and if he shall be found offence; original by jury *12 convicted, identical of death person originally in- penalty , be inflicted. curred done in And the same thing may where, to all offences in this the law regard country, authorizes the power pardoning modify punishment and effect to the commutation. give In 4 a case is Call. where the reported prisoner Virginia, On motion of the the was indicted for felony. attorney-general execution, for award was pardon governor’s pleaded, because the had no absolute, urged governor authority annex condition. The held that the con- general therefore the dition was was absolute. illegal, pardon . Carolina, in North case in Hawks. reported Another defendant was convicted of sentenced forgery, pillory, and a fine lashes, three of one imprisonment, thirty-nine years’ n 185,5. TElRM, ^21 William. Wells. con- costs; dollars; .execution issued for fine thousand'’ said, the The governor ditional governor. judge consistent add or commute .with —it * to remit.” his power in our constitution are told that a term is used when .We look to that law, at the common we statutes known in common- its is a familiar Pardon word meaning. system to such but it is not a term prоceed- peculiar proceedings, men; and it intercourse It apph.es. ordinary ings. said, It is in a remission, means offence is monarchy, forgiveness. is the monarch, that, consequently, only proper person forgive. incident to Bacon power irreparably says, pardoning And and is of the crown, Idng. Comyns, high prerogative “ The his his may grant digest, says: king, by prerogative, of a crime; his to all attainted or convicted and. offenders are do but not restrain lung’s prerogative, statutes a caution well.” using monarch, is a The prerogative power statute. Is this the cannot, seems, be restrained or the of the word- which' common-law usage we meaning are refer as case ? If the President guide present exercise the as 'free from restraints can pardoning power, than Queen of is much England, prerogative greater into the Instead of nature our looking supposed. true of terms for the meaning powers" vesting government, are executive, we to be instructed by studying regalia the crown of not to the definition of the ascertain England; are exercised under assured word it what powers rule of construc- the monarch of This is new England. of the I had of the President. tion constitutional powers law, of the and that the he was the mere instrument thought оf the crown of did not ornament his brow. England the flowers 846: constitution, In his says, commentary Judge Story different, structure of whole our so entirely government so dissimilar frota elements which it is are composed from the be drawn that tice of the argument prac- exec- England, .can latter, to assist us in a just arrangement utive authority.” that is is not the ; word pardon objected meaning is the of the crown which are but it exercised powers prerogative executive, President designation. under in this as,the Queen holds executive country, authority Are as to the extent of the exec- we be instructed England. utive into the exercise looking country, by ? same England *13 322
Ex William Wells. the act for the better of the United In of the government navy Stats, art. States, 51, the 23d at 1800, passed April, p. Large, (2 “ States, or, declared: The United President of the 42,) the trial takes out of the United com- when place or to mander of fleet shall full squadron, possess after con- articles, offence committed these pardon any a court- viction, martial.” to decreed by mitigate punishment If, congress, included -the to commute the punishment, provision would seem to be unnecessary. President to is as But admit that still, the as are crown in England, great prerogatives Queen of act before us is unsustainablе. The England She has no do what the President done in this instance. under commute power, except which the punishment, statutes, other sentenced, has been any prisoner judicially at her discretion. punishment “ if his it is 140, the act of IIL c. provided, By George to extend his shall be mercy any graciously pleased majesty the sentence of death offender liable to or of court-martial, naval condition transportation, upon condition seas, himself or upon transporting beyond being or on condition of Britain, in Great within jail imprisoned any' correction, Of labor in or house to hard kept any jail being penitentiary lawful for house, &c., it shall and may any intention Bench, &c., such mercy justice King’s to such offender notified in to allow as aforesaid writing, shall be of such conditional' expressed the benefit make an order required And such notification. judge to be as declared effectual regard punishment, the sentence of the inflicted as if such court; had been made to and the sentence of death was apply should he offender, escape'.” 1824, it is June, IY. 21st the act George again, by And to extend his his shall be majesty pleased “when provided, mercy, upon seas, &c., one condition transportation beyond same secretaries shall his signify majesty’s principal been сonvicted; the offender before which proper offender, of a condi- benefit such court' to such shall allow immediate transporta- an order for and make tional tion of such declares that act any person And the offender. suffer should at thus had been transported, found who large, déath,” &c. that when IV. declares 8& of Statute George § to extend his royal mercy shall be pleased majesty king’s one of his offender, countersigned royal sign-manual, .323 parte: William Wells. *14 á such free of shall to state, offender grant principal secretaries . . a conditional &c. pardon,” a conviction for Geo. c. there was high In-154 III. where to was authorized treason, punishment-^- change king the neck—but that said shall not be hanged by that person beheaded; &c. thereof such should instead person Institute, in 3d vol. 52: Neither is laid down Coke’s p. “ alter the execu- under the seal warrant great can king any by In of the law doth-direct.” tion, otherwise than judgment “ of law, it is a maxim book, the same execution he p.'211, says, pmst be to the according judgment.” of the of with all the The sovereign England, prerogatives' a a conditional cannot substitute crown, in granting does not authorize. The law author- the law which punishment to inflict other for- izes the transport, punishments, sovereign to some one or more offences, and this certain being signified condition his or effect is to the their of through judges, given that the inflicted is matter of So punishment instrumentality. return the offender into And should after record. England, to the law him under the banishment, subjects punishment in conviction. Here is on the one certainty limiting original of discretion and on the power, other pardoning hand of the the rights culprit, few, With if very any, exceptions, .pardons States, of been where governors except by granted in the been or laws-of given constitution express authority the States. So, March, 1794, as the 12th law New early “ shall lawful for the York provided person State, of the for the time being,' administering governmént the constitution to all cases in which-he is authorized by grant such and' conditions, the same with pardons, such restrictions, limitations, and under he think proper.” of the United Mr. The distinguished attorney-general from the called on for in a case Wirt, his differing extent, to some the samé involving, principles, present, 1820, to of 4th Navy, letter January, Secretary says: “ submits, of the 30th ultimo Your letter my opinion, of death, the sentence which of the'President change power Bons- William court-martial passed general “ service marine into a sentence in the „man, private corps, cause of one after which and rеstraint the spacé year, to it.” as a to be drummed from the marine corps, disgrace the rules and He refers 42d article of regulations embrace -the marine which corps, declares navy, full shall power Presidént United States possess William Wells. conviction, or to offence after these articles any pardon mitigate he And, decreed a court-martial.” punishment not, “the does the offence my power pardoning says, but the include the power punishment; changing opinion, “ court-martial, decreed mitigate punishment,” power than as think, sense cannot, I other understood fairly a milder substitute meaning place would court-martial, sense it in which of that decreed sub- the sentence the President justify proposes stitute, in the ca.se under consideration.” leaves terms, “in general mitigation, says, himself, and if manner of act performing mercy its other than species, can changing performed way has, the President adopting my opinion, ” him the ; observes, form and he mitigation deny instance, is to him the in this changing deny the severest of all punishments. Congress power mitigating *15 of the that there the exercise foresaw were cases in which power the therefore, in first entire be of pardon might proper; they But of the article, branch the pardon. gave power would, it be also, that foresaw improper there would be cases which there the offence pardon ought entirely, nevertheless, some- it be which, (cid:127)be but in punishment, might that decreed to inflict a milder than the the by punishment proper court-martial; member and distinct of hence, in another and distinct him, terms, article they give separate general of mitigation.” power be It will seen that Mr. Wirt places power mitigation under the article cited. expressly aIn letter to the President on the dated power “ March, 1820, 30th Mr. Wirt power says: absolute and entire constitution, is given pardon. power however, On the power principle, greater I less, includes am of that the power pardoning includes the There absolutely pardoning conditionally. “ however,” he lest a conditional says, great danger of enforc- one, should as an absolute from operate difficulty it, condition, or, in case a breach of resorting ing sentence of arises from condemnation; which difficulty original of the national the limited powers government. “ “ on a he condi- remarks, granted suppose,” officers of the federal tion, government as, executed — on a fortification—and for condition violated work public supрose example, is the where running away, of the law United circumstances, arrest, in these given by any made, where is the arrest could And ? States suppose 185tf. William Wells. our authorizes a court acts that clause judiciary some in such a state ? And without positive things proceed legislative federal on the I that some of our know regulation subject, at would feel themselves to proceed, judges liberty novo, on the It is true de case. original king England the common law; pardons by grants- law has mode of same common for a provided proceeding We breach of condition on the of the have no culprit. part here, however, common'law hence arises difficulty.” “' he And If condition can be whose execution devised says, certain, I have no doubt that the President would may pardon on such condition. All conditions would be of this precedent character e. officer under sentence of ; g., military death, on the condition of his commission.” previous resigning his letter to the President, 1845,' In dated 18th September, “ Mason I cannot doubt the Mr. Attorney-General says: President to from sentence of dismission mitigate a term of into a service, commuting suspension years, A dismission is a without without pay. perpetual-suspension and the without the inferior limited suspension pay pay; of the same The minor is contained in punishment. degree “ And he of death for murder major.” says: could mitigated by substituting any punishment This authorize inflict for would manslaughter. of the offence.” the inferior degree in his letter dated And Navy, again, Secretary October, 1845, Mr. Mason Did this 16th says: power to the sentence include the to commute or substi- mitigate tute decreed for that another and milder to a court-martial,) mitigation,” says, (referring adjudged, by reducing must modify- of death, where there its severity, except sentences ing “ At the He war has always says: department degree.” *16 that the exécutive has not the -way considered power, by been to substitute a for that different punishment of mitigation, rule of a sentence" court-martial —the general being' inflicted by sentence must be a punishment part that mitigated 1820, Mr. Wirt “that in remarks, gave decreed.” He.further a substitution but made of rule, recognizing of death an for the sentence exception; punishment .different can it on that capital only he ground places Mr. of Attorney- change punishment.” be by mitigated the article to that said, the power should given General Wirt as referred to Mr. mitiga- was authorizing by mitigate tion, pardon. and not general power found, than Mr. Wirt can be as authority coming "No higher VOL. XVIII. [28] 'William Wells. lаw of from the officer government. gives procedure us now before no but throws the countenance support, weight name of his the exercise of assumed. great isit said, that the of commutation exer- may fye cised President under laws of by adopted Maryland, on the cession constitutes congress which now territory
the District of Columbia. The constitution of that Maryland provides, governor “ alone all exercise other executive of may powers govern- ment, where the concurrence of council is not required according to the laws of State, grant reprieves pardons any crime, in cases shall where law otherwise direct.” except cap This, I one will be to the contend, suppose, applied President of the United States. The constitutional provision made to the action of subject the. legislature. A statute of was c. passed make Maryland effectual. This can tend law to show pardons only was no such law be prior could there made effectual. The first law on the was Maryland “ enacted 1787. The first section provided, governor his discretion, may, offender convicted any capitally on therein, condition contained is and be shall effectual as a condition to the intent therеof.” according The second section if the slave, he convict provides, State, out and sold for the transported benefit State. sect, declares, 4th if a who party pardoned shall condition’ shall the State return thereto, he leaving contrary and on found be the arrested, same jury the court shall person, the law pass judgment requires for the crime committed. The second on the same was enacted in 1795. subject, sect, 1st to issue a requires warrant governor to' sheriff, the court into effect. The 2d carry sect, that, discretion, in his commute or governor may change sentence or of death into other judgment 'of such he shall think State, criminal of this such terms and conditions as slave, And if a expedient. transported and sold the benefit the State. an act the 27th of 1801, it was By congress February, declared, exist, that the laws now shall Maryland, be and continue said district force- part that State to the United States, ceded them This covers what now the District accepted.” provision ; Columbia. *17 1855. parte: Wells.
Ex William for the laws of punishment That the Maryland general actions, contracts, forms of courts, offences, the practice But the under laws of the above laws &c., come undoubted. Maryland, whether regulate questionis, States, of the United in the to the President apply the governor, reflection, come the same much I have After exercise power. nor can neither control conclusion that justify they of the President of the constitutional exercise reasons:— following of their and some 1. Their provis- inappropriate, language The- duties of the President. are ions inconsistent with execute the sentence to issue a warrant to is required governor of the the benefit of also to sell convicted slaves for and the President do this ? Can the State. than half a these have not 2. For more century acts President, he has to the- often pardons, although granted applied laws have either of the the case now before us. Nor until in have who one of the been referred to any attorney’s general elaborate and on who given been consulted subject, the diffi- Wirt, Mr. who dwells upon particularly opiniohs, culty, condition on out the if not impracticability, carrying No was without legislation. which reference was granted, specific made to these late laws attorney-general, commuted, death advice the on whose for life. Wells, favor imprisonment 3. respecting high prerogative Any regulation convict, or commute the must gen- extend far as the eral, and federal jurisdiction extends, be restricted act any particular congress by any constitution, State or The power given territory. fundamental law; be exercised commensurate with it may to be exercised at dis- modification of the and cretion power, be coextensive with the constitu- President, must tional power. declares, 8th section of constitution article of the 1st laws which shall have all shall to make that congress execution into foregoing necessary proper carrying this constitution in the all other vested powers powers, government any department or officer of the United or in thereof.” can in this case only above acts Maryland operate that view have been enacted acts of they congress, referred to or acted more-than without fifty yeprs, period, although during discussed, has been often want provisions circumstances, felt and Under contain expressed. deeply
328' Wells. William. force, acts, them, consider those or éither of as in possible *18 so, in this district since 1801 ? If this be it is the most extra- event that occurred has in ordinary legal history any country. The laws from not were adopted Maryland specified byname; course, those character, in their which were local only were nature transactions, their local necessary regulate controversies, the courts which settle were The laws adopted.' regulate duty powers' governor, regard n more offenders, no pardons granted President apply than duties for the action of the prescribed governor other matter. This shows reason the above laws have why been, dormant, as unknown, if for more than fifty years. . too late now them, resuscitate however 'strongly present call for them. exigency may arn I not to commutation of opposed where punishment, be by any great principle called may justice humanity;, but not exercise of such be law, should regulated by left to executive. As law now discretion stands, substituted, as as the well exercise of rests and there is discretion; mode of power, upon legal effect commutation; this is an giving objection unanswerable it. No court would execute the convict on the sentence under such circumstances. original If the condition on which a shall-be be void, granted This, becomes absolute. I a clear think, is principle, there be found some it. The although opinions against President has if he make the on an of condition—for a void condition considered impossible maybe is valid. that charаcter —the grant void, condition I think Wells is detained, illegally and should discharged. Justice Mr. In CURTIS dissenting. Kaine, 14 How. I Ex parte examined, with the' care, . of this court to issue corpus writs jurisdiction habeas tó inquire
into causes commitment. I came then to the conclusion fact that mere circuit court had examined the cause the, and refused to commitment did not discharge prisoner, enable this a writ of' corpus, habeas court, reexamine the cause same subsequent Though reflection commitment. I should formed, confirmed then have acquiesced if a case, assumed in this court, jurisdiction rpajority case, had decided Kane’s contrary my opinion. then left and in undecided; for the question ease, first time, assumed, been my judgment, on the jurisdiction "Wells. William the cause not that commitment ex was originally of. ground, aminable here—for an exercise would original juris1* that, examinable, diction—‘but thus though originally yet, has had the it, before and has the circuit remand prisoner court, corpus, ed of habeas examine- that him, .writ see not. whether it erroneous or decision this is over That which the jurisdiction only ground that, can be be considered to rested, this case be an commitment, examinátion cause of will original clearly if of commitment we attend to what cause was. appear, sentence is was convicted His petitioner capitally. it ordered form, before us in must infer that we brought until the or should which was imprisoned day executive, fixed his execution. He received a I that he should consider, pardon. Regularly, before the circuit court of habeas cor writ brought and have there in bar of so-much of his pus, pleaded *19 in bar of the or, as directed him to be entire sentence hung; him to continue in if the condition sentence, imprison requiring Wilson, ment for life was United States v. 7 inoperative. Peters, done, If this had been the circuit court would have its such in pronounced judgment upon plea; validity the decision has made in this with which court conformity its former sen case,-it must have entered a judgment vacating tence, and life sentencing petitioner imprisonment during of this District. in penitentiary such á sentence no Over this court could have exercised con- trol, corpus. either writ of error or of Not writ of habeas by by cases. Not error, for none is criminal habeas by allowed in 3 Pet. a Watkins, held in corpus, for, parte as was ex writ issue from this a corpus of habeas cannot court examine court, criminal sentence of the circuit even where the objection record, to the sentenсe that it on the face of the in appears not court, the circuit had opinion jurisdic- because circuit tion,-and void; its proceeding merely are the final and of all courts their to reverse one of their of their own judges jurisdiction; court has no criminal cases. This proceedings cause, criminal judgments any to form judicial consequently correctness thereof. any \ the case as us, In before so far did appears, petitioner did circuit court, his nor plead formally entry records, sentence, on its and sentence vacate capital formally court, anew. But that its own final prisoner judg- using ment case, as to the this criminal mode of proper proceeding be form as deemed to manner and proceeded accordf
[*] 28 Supreme court. William Wells. It to law. remanded the execution ing prisoner, far sentence, so as that directed his original imprisonment. this had been done, After be viewed in imprisonment may of two It one considered continued aspects. as under may sentence; execution of that original sentence part commanded him to be hung being par- postponed by so as don, there shall be no condition; or the long breach.of sentence be treated original under the the sentence as.modified proceedings corpus habeas court, circuit and that part annulled, which commanded hung, the residue in force. remaining case, As I view this therefore, it stands thus: petitioner under a criminal sentence imprisoned circuit either order as modified pronounced, originally circuit court made under writ of That corpus. habeas or" modified criminal sentence the cause of his original mitment. com- this court has no .writ of Though Jurisdiction sentence, déeided, error to revise such a and has deliberately Watkins, ex a that writ be made parte corpus habeas qf of error for such a writ writ habeas cor- purpose, yet by do revise such a we sentence in this case. pus to me seems that the refusal of writ of error in criminal idle, mischievous, if a cases writ of only habeas corpus, (cid:127) for the certainly very clumsy proceeding purpose, qf to- to, resorted the record criminal bring caáe, may of whatever every kind, before this court. deference for the With brethren', opinions my my judg- ment, it little towards goes very way avoiding difficulty that, before one under a criminal of a hold can not review it the circuit court thus attack his sentence in a court which can- collaterally, direct he- must first proсeeding, apply circuit court corpus; writ, for writ of habeas if the it, refused, under then into action discharge bring *20 of this and a of writ appellate porpus habeas this of sentence, out of execution a we stop court which have to reverse. New come questions before this court affect course of general which more than justice deeply of This remedial writ of jurisdiction. questions great habeas so corpus, action, efficacious in its and so prompt justly valued in our an become instrument to unsettle country, may of lines nicely adjusted jurisdiction, produce-conflict action, If true of its and the disorder. sphere precise .limits ,in it, of issue become should confused any degree - indistinct, or serious consequences consequences may follow— efficient of affecting administration only criminal- United of action States, laws'' harmonious of the
Dodge Woolsey. v. our divided which For sovereignties by country governed. of I reasons, bias, which, sensible these 'though suppose, of this felt, one has in favor I have heretofore every process, feel, with care the our constrained examine of question now of issue that this it; court has jurisdiction opinion of the cause of into the commit- inquire validity stated in this it should be ment I think dismissed for petition, reason. this In Mr. Justice CAMPBELL concurs. opinion George Woolsey. C. M. v. Dodge, Appellant, John against directors, chancery pro-' corporation remedy in a has a in A stockholder charter, a of the doing amount to violation or to them which vent prevent any misapplication from acts would might profits which lessen the value capital then or shares, in a amount to what is called law breach if the acts intended to done of the duty. or of trust individuals, they in remedy whatever character also a stockholder a- So profess franchise, act, corporate of a complaint imputed if the is an violation it, which there is not an ade- right growing or the of a denial out quate remedy at law. Therefore, prQpor resist a' take measures to where the of bank refused directors tax, upon imposed to have been a believed the collection of them violation themselves charter, a for such a in amounted to what termed refusal their trust, chancery asking right had to file a bill breach of remedy stockholder might require. the case per- the hank and than that in which stockholder be resident of another If the State duty or charter, breach of trust attempting commit a to violate its sons domicile, 'He of the United States. his bill in the courts their he file laws the United States. right under the constitution as an ultimate explained, tribunal to rights and of this examined The duties court legislatures byor state or decisions of by congress, laws enacted determine whether the United States. constitution state courts are in conflict with 1845, Ohio, stipulated in which charter was hank the State of chartered Where to which said pay, in lieu of all taxes the bank should amount tax which the company therein, thereof, would account stock owned the stockholders iipon taxes levying an passed act subject; legislature and in otherwise the conflict This act is in upon principle. a different to a amount and greater bank founded obligation impairing with the constitution United contract, and void. therefore constitution, 1851, adopted a new had, fact, people of the State The upon banks mode imposed that taxes should be which it was declared obligations the State from the carry out, release purported the act of 1852 United States. by the constitution imposed and duties ICnoop, 16 Ohio u. How. Bank of Piqua case Branch of State again affirmed. United States from the circuit This appeal of Ohio. for the District are stated of the case fully circumstances court.