Summary

by John Marshall Harlan The Laura Pollock v. Bridgeport Steam-Boat Company…

But is that power exclusive, in the sense that no other officer can remit forfeitures or penalties incurred for the violation of the laws of the United States? This question cannot be answered in the affirmative without adjudging that the practice in reference to remissions by the secretary of the treasury and other officers, which has been observed and acquiesced in for nearly a century, is forbidden by the constitution.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan The Laura Pollock v. Bridgeport Steam-Boat Company…

The statutes regulating the transportation of passengers by steam-vessels on such of the waters of the United States as are common highways of commerce, or are open to general or competitive navigation,-other than public vessels of this county, vessels of other countries, and canal-boats, propelled in whole or in part by steam,-provide that every certificate of inspection granted to steamers carrying passengers, other than ferry-boats, shall show the number of passengers of each class for whom the steamer has accommodations, and whom it can carry with prudence and safety
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Harlan The Laura Pollock v. Bridgeport Steam-Boat Company…

It is not necessary to question the soundness of some of hese propositions. It may be conceded that, except in cases of impeachment, and where fines are imposed by a co-ordinate department of the government for contempt of its authority, the president, under the general, unqualified grant of power to pardon offenses against the United States, may remit fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of congress
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature