Opinion of the Court. of the property and to bind his heirs by warranty deeds, the court has declared, from the above principles, that the pardon' could not give back the property which had been sold, nor any interest in it, either in possession or expectancy. The whole argument on the other side may be summed up in the statement that the pardon for treason restored the fee, or the right to control the fee, in property seized, condemned and sold as enemy's property under the laws of war. This is the very proposition which the court, for the reasons above given, has denied both in the Wallach and in the Semmes cases. There is no argument or suggestion in the plaintiffs' brief as to how the pardon of the claimants' ancestor for his offences` against the government could deprive his heirs of the benefit secured solely to them by the joint resolution of Congress. The confiscation was an accomplished fact, and whatever rights grew out of that fact were already vested when the pardon was granted. There would be as much reason to hold that the pardon divested the title of the purchaser of the estate for the life of the public enemy, who was also a public offender, as to hold that it annulled the effect of the joint resolution and divested the rights thereby secured ultimately to the heirs on the death of their ancestor. He was entirely disseized by the confiscation of the whole estate, and they were authorized to take this whole estate, at his death, as his heirs, by descent, although there was no seizin in him at the time of his death. The pardon may have made him a "new man," but it did not make new facts or destroy vested rights. Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149, 153; Os born v. United States, 91 U. S. 474. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. The principal question raised in the present case is, whether, by the effect of the pardon and amnesty granted to A. W. Bosworth by the special pardon of October, 1865, and the general proclamation of amnesty and pardon of December Opinion of the Court. 25th, 1868, he was restored to the control and power of dis position over the fee simple or naked property in reversion expectant upon the determination of the confiscated estate in the property in dispute. The question of the effect of pardon and amnesty on the destination of the remaining estate of the offender, still outstanding after a eonfiscation of the property during his natural life, has never been settled by this court. That the guilty party had no control over it in the absence of such pardon or amnesty, has been frequently decided. Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202; Chaffraix v. Shiff, 92 U. S. 214; Pike v. Wassell, 94 U. S. 711; French v. Wade, 102 U. S. 132; and see Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U. S. 293; Shields v. Schiff, 124 U. S. 351. But it has been regarded as a doubtful question, what became of the fee, or ultimate estate, after the confiscation for life. "We are not called upon," said Justice Strong, in Wallach v. Van Riswick, "to determine where the fee dwells during the continuance of the interest of a purchaser at a confiscation sale, whether in the United States, or in the purchaser, subject to be defeated by the death of the offender." 92 U. S. 212. It has also been suggested that the fee remained in the person whose estate was confiscated; but without any power in him to dispose of or control it. Perhaps it is not of much consequence which of these theories, if either of them, is the true one; the important point being, that the remnant of the estate, whatever its nature, and wherever it went, was never beneficially disposed of, but remained (so to speak) in a state of suspended animation. Both the common and the civil laws furnish analogies of suspended ownership of estates which may help us to a proper conception of that now under consideration. Blackstone says: "Sometimes the fee may be in abeyance, that is (as the word signifies) in expectation, remembrance and contemplation of law; there being no person in esse in whom it can vest and abide; though the law considers it as always potentially existing, and ready to vest when a proper owner appears. Thus in a grant to John for life, and afterwards to the heirs of Richard, the inheritance is plainly neither granted to John Opinion of the Court. nor Richard, nor can it vest in the heirs of Richard till his death, nam nemo est haeres viventis; it remains, therefore, in waiting or abeyance during the life of Richard." 2 Bl. Com. 107. In the civil law, the legal conception is a little different. Pothier says: "The dominion of property (or ownership), the same as all other rights, as well in re as ad rem, necessarily supposes a person in whom the right subsists and to whom it belongs. It need not be a natural person; it may belong to corporations or communities, which have only a civil and intellectual existence or personality. When an owner dies, and no one will accept the succession, this dormant succession (succession jacente) is considered as being a civil person and as the continuation of that of the deceased; and in this fictitious person subsists the dominion or ownership of whatever belonged to the deceased, the same as all other active and passive rights of the deceased; hæreditas jacens persona defuncti locum obtinet." Droit de Domaine de Propriété, Partie I, c. 1, § 15. But, as already intimated, it is not necessary to be over .curious about the intermediate state in which the disembodied shade of naked ownership may have wandered during the period of its ambiguous existence. It is enough to know that it was neither annihilated, nor confiscated, nor appropriated to any third party. The owner, as a punishment for his offences, was disabled from exercising any acts of ownership over it, and no power to exercise such acts was given to any other person. At his death, if not before, the period of suspension comes to an end, and the estate revives and devolves 1 Le domaine de propriété, de même que tous les autres droits, tant in re qu' ad rem, suppose nécessairement une personne dans laquelle ce droit subsiste, et à qui il appartienne. Il n'est pas nécessaire que ce soit une personne naturelle, telle que sont les personnes des particuliers, à qui le 'droit appartienne : ce droit, de même que toutes les autres espèces de droits, peut appartenir à des corps et à des communautés, qui n'ont qu'une personne civile et intellectuelle. Lors qu'un propriétaire étant mort, personne ne veut accepter sa succession, cette succession jacente est considérée comme étant une personne civile, et comme la continuation de celle du défunt; et c'est dans cette personne fictive que subsiste le domaine de propriété de toutes les choses qui appartenaient au défunt, de même que tous les autres droits actifs et passifs du défunt: Hæreditas jacens personæ defuncti locum obtinet. Opinion of the Court. nor to his heirs at law. In Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U. S. 293, and in Shields v. Schiff, 124 U. S. 351, this court held that the heirs of the offender, at his death, take by descent from him and not by gift or grant from the government. They are not named in the confiscation act, it is true, nor in the joint resolution limiting its operation. The latter merely says, shall any punishment or proceedings under said act be so, construed as to work a forfeiture of the real estate of the offender, beyond his natural life." The court has construed the effect of this language to be, to leave the property free to descend to the heirs of the guilty party. Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339; Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202, 210. Mr. Justice Strong, in the latter case, speaking of the constitutional provision, that no attainder of treason should work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted, (which provision was the ground and cause for passing the joint resolution referred to,) said "No one ever doubted that it was a provision introduced for the benefit of the children and heirs alone; a declaration that the children should not bear the iniquity of the fathers." But, although the effect of the law was to hold the estate, or naked ownership, in a state of suspension for the benefit of the heirs, yet they acquired no vested interest in it; for, until the death of the ancestor, there is no heir. During his life it does not appear who the heirs will be. Heirs apparent have, in a special case, been received to intervene for the protection of the property from spoliation. Pike v. Wassell, 94 U. S. .. 711. This was allowed from the necessity of the case, arising from the fact that the ancestor's disability prevented him from exercising any power over the property for its protection or otherwise, and no other persons but the heirs apparent had even a contingent interest to be protected. It would seem to follow as a logical consequence from the decision in Avegno v. Schmidt and Shields v. Schiff, that after the confiscation of the property the naked fee (or the naked ownership, as denominated in the civil law), subject, for the lifetime of the offender, to the interest or usufruct of the purchaser at the confiscation sale, remained in the offender him Opinion of the Court. self; otherwise, how could his heirs take it from him by inheritance? But, by reason of his disability to dispose of, or touch it, or affect it in any manner whatsoever, it remained, as before stated, a mere dead estate, or in a condition of suspended animation. We think that this is, on the whole, the most reasonable view. There is no corruption of blood; the offender can transmit by descent; his heirs take from him by descent; why, then, is it not most rational to conclude that the dormant and suspended fee has continued in him? Now, if the disabilities which prevented such person from exercising any power over this suspended fee, or naked property, be removed by a pardon or amnesty, so removed as to restore him to all his rights, privileges and immunities, as if he had never offended, except as to those things which have become vested in other persons, — why does it not restore him to the control of his property so far as the same has never been forfeited, or has never become vested in another person? In our judgment it does restore him to such control. In the opinion of the court in the case of Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380, the effect of a pardon is stated as follows, to wit: "A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and, when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him as it were a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property or interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment." The qualification in the last sentence of this extract, that a pardon does not affect vested interests, was exemplified in the case of Semmes v. United States, 91 U. S. 21, where a pardon was held not to interfere with the right of a purchaser of the forfeited estate. The same doctrine had been laid down in |