in which Mr. Rusk, Mr. Gwin, Mr. Badger, Mr. Davis, Mr. Seward, Mr. Mason and Mr. Sumner, took part. It was urged by the latter, in reply to objections, that the Committee on Naval Affairs was the proper Committee, as at the present moment it is specially charged with a subject intimately connected with the inquiry into the importance and practicability of Cheap Ocean Postage. At the suggestion of Mr. Badger, the matter was allowed to lie over till the next day.

On Tuesday, 9th instant, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Sumner on the 8th inst., relative to Ocean Steamers and Cheap Ocean Postage. On motion of Mr. Sumner, it was amended, and finally adopted, without opposition, as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be directed to inquire whether the present charges on letters carried by the Ocean Steamers are not unnecessarily large and burdensome to foreign correspondence, and whether something may not be done, and, if so, what, to secure the great boon of Cheap Ocean Postage.

THE PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.

ARGUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT 14TH MAY, 1852,

ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE PARDON OF DRAYTON AND SAYRES, DETAINED IN PRISON AT WASHINGTON FOR HELPING THE ESCAPE OF SLAVES.

This case excited peculiar interest. Messrs. Drayton and Sayres had already been in prison more than four years, when Mr. Sumner applied to President Fillmore for their pardon. To this application, which was sustained by petitions from other quarters, the President interposed doubts of his right to exercise the pardoning power in their case, but expressed a desire for light on this point. On his invitation, Mr. Sumner laid before him the following paper. Shortly afterwards the pardon was granted.

66

By the laws of Maryland, 1737, chapter 2, section 4, it is provided that any person "who shall steal any negro or other slave," or who shall counsel, hire, aid, abet, or command any person or persons" to do so, shall suffer death as a felon. The punishment has since been changed to imprisonment, for a term not less than seven, nor more than twenty years.

Fourteen years later, by the act of 1751, chapter 14, section 10, it was provided that "if any free person shall entice and persuade any slave within this province

o run away, and who shall actually run away from the master, owner, or overseer, and be convicted thereof, by confession or verdict of a jury, upon an indictment or information, shall forfeit and pay the full value of such slave, to the master or owner of such slave, to be levied by execution on the goods, chattels, lands, or tenements of the offender, and, in case of inability to pay the same, shall suffer one year's imprisonment without bail or mainprise."

Still later, by the act of 1796, chapter 67, section 19, "the transporting of any slave or person, held to service" from the State, was made a distinct offence, for which the offender was made liable in an action of damages, and also by indictment.

By the act of Congress, organizing the District of Columbia, (Feb. 27, 1801,) it was declared that "the laws of the State of Maryland, as they now exist, shall be, and continue in force, in that part of the said District which was ceded by that State to the United States, and by them accepted as aforesaid." Under this provision, these ancient laws of Maryland are to this day of full force in the District of Columbia.

Messrs. Dray

The facts to be considered are few. ton and Sayres, on indictment and trial, under the act of 1737, for stealing slaves, were acquitted; the jury rendering a verdict of "not guilty." Resort was then had to the statute of 1796, chapter 67, section 19, as follows: :

"And be it enacted, that any person or persons who shall hereafter be convicted of giving a pass to any slave, or person held to service, or shall be found to assist, by advice, donation, or loan, or otherwise, the transporting of any

slave, or any person held to service, from this State, or by any other unlawful means depriving the master or owner of the service of his slave, or person held to service, for every such offence the party aggrieved shall recover damages in an action on the case against such offender or offenders, and such offender or offenders also shall be liable, upon indictment and conviction upon verdict, confession or otherwise, in this State, in any county court where such offence shall happen, be fined a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, at the discretion of the court, one half to the use of the master or owner of such slave, the other half to the county school, in case there be any, if no such school, to the use of the county."

Under this statute, proceedings were instituted by the attorney of the District of Columbia, against these parties, in seventy-four different indictments, each indictment being founded on the alleged "transporting" of a single slave. On conviction, Drayton was sentenced on each indictment to a fine of $140, and costs, in each case $19.49, amounting in the sum total to $11,802.26. On conviction, Sayres was sentenced on each indictment to a fine of $100 and costs, in each case $17.38, amounting in the sum total to $8,686.12. One half of the fine was, according to law, to the use of the masters or owners of the slaves transported; the other half to the county school; or, in case there be no such school, to the use of the county. Afterwards, on motion of the attorney for the District, they were prayed in commitment," and committed until the fine and costs are payed. In pursuance of this sentence, and on this motion, they have been detained in prison, in the city of Washington, from April, 1848, and are still in prison, unable, from poverty, to pay these large fines. The question now occurs as to the

66

power of the President to pardon them, so at least as to relieve them from their imprisonment.

The peculiar embarrassment in this case arises from the nature of the sentence. If it were simply a sentence of imprisonment, his power would be unquestionable. So, also, if it were a sentence of imprisonment, with fine superadded, payable to the United States, his power would be unquestionable; and the same power would extend to the case of a fine payable to the United States, with imprisonment as the alternative on non-payment of the fine.

But in the present case, the imprisonment is the alternative for non-payment of fines, which are not payable to the United States, but to other parties, viz. : the slave owners and the county. It is important, however, to bear in mind, that these fines are a mere donation to these parties, and not a compensation for services rendered. These parties were not informers, nor were the proceedings in the nature of a qui tam action.

It should be distinctly understood, at the outset, that the proceedings against Drayton and Sayres were not at the suit of any informer or private individual, but at the prosecution of the United States by indictment. They are, therefore, removed from the authority of the English cases, which protect the share of an informer after judgment from remission, by pardon from the crown.

The power of the President in the present case may be regarded, first, in the light of the common law;