Footnote
a See the case of The United States v. George Wilson, which arose because this man refused to accept the presidential pardon issued by President Andrew Jackson on June 14, 1830. The decision of the Supreme Court insisted “That the court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it, and relies on it by plea or motion. The form in which he may ask it is not material to this inquiry; but the claim must be made in some shape by him. It is a grant to him; it is his property; and he may accept it or not as he pleases. . . . A pardon may be granted on a condition precedent or subsequent, and the party remains liable to the punishment if the condition is not performed. . . . Suppose a pardon granted on conditions, which the prisoner does not choose to accept? Suppose the condition is exile, and he thinks the sentence is a lighter punishment? Suppose he thinks it his interest to undergo the punishment, in order to make his peace with the public for an offence committed in sudden temptation? . . .”
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, reminding the United States Government that “A pardon may be conditional; and the condition may be more objectionable than the punishment inflicted by the judgment. . . . This court is of opinion that the pardon in the proceedings mentioned, not having been brought judicially before the court by plea, motion or otherwise, cannot be noticed by the judges. . . .”
Hence the pardon that would have spared the life of George Wilson was not allowed to affect the judgment of the law against him.—See 32 U.S. (7 Peters), page 150 ff.