_First._ As to the _Common Law_, it may be doubtful, whether, according to early authorities, the pardoning power can be used so as to bar or divest any legal interest, benefit, or advantage vested in a private individual. It is broadly stated by English writers that it cannot be so used. (2 Hawkins, P.C., 392, Book II., chap. 37, sec. 34; 17 Viner's Abridgment, 39, Prerogative of the King, U. art. 7.) But this principle does not seem to be sustained by practical cases in the United States, except in the instances of informers and _qui tam_ actions, while, on one occasion, in a leading case of Kentucky, it was rejected. (_Routt_ v. _Feemster_, 7 J.J. Marshall, 132.) But it is clearly established, that, where the fine is allotted to a public body, or a public officer, for a public purpose, it may be remitted by pardon. This may be illustrated by several cases. 1. As where, in Pennsylvania, the fine was for the benefit of the county. In this case the Court said: "Until the money is collected and paid into the treasury, the constitutional right of the Governor to pardon the offender, and remit the fine or forfeiture, remains in full force. They can have no more vested interest in the money than the Commonwealth, under the same circumstances, would have had; and it cannot be doubted, that, until the money reaches the treasury, the Governor has the power to remit.... In the case of costs, private persons are interested in them; but as to fines and forfeitures, they are imposed upon principles of public policy. The latter, therefore, are under the exclusive control of the Governor." (_Commonwealth_ v. _Denniston_, 9 Watts, 142.) The same point is also illustrated by a case in Illinois. (_Holliday_ v. _The People_, 5 Gilman, 214-217.) 2. As where, in Georgia, the fine was to be paid to an inferior court for county purposes. (_In Re_ Flournoy, Attorney-General, 1 Kelly, 606-610.) 3. As where, in South Carolina, the fine was to be paid to the Commissioners of Public Buildings, for public purposes, (_The State_ v. _Simpson_, 1 Bailey, 378,) or the Commissioners of the Roads. (_The State_ v. _Williams_, 1 Nott & McCord, 26. See also _Rowe_ v. _The State_, 2 Bay, 565.) According to these authorities, the portion of the fine allotted to the county, or to the school, may be remitted. Of this there can be no doubt. * * * * * _Secondly._ _The Statutes of Maryland_, anterior to the organization of the District of Columbia, may also be regarded as an independent source of light on this question, since these statutes are made the law of the District. And here the conclusion seems to be easy.