Sunbury American and Shamokin journal. [volume] (Sunbury, Northumberland Co., Pa.) 1840-1848, 1841-07-24


were granted during lhc last THREE MONTHS of his
administration.
Gov. PoRrEn.--The entire number of pardons
granted under the present administration, being up-
wards OF two aud half years in power, is ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT, and told
being Infinitely FEWER in number than were gram
ted by any administration that has erer been in
7o,ce' in The adte!! And this too, notwithstand-
ing the steady iScnEAsE of our population and
the consequent increase of crime which, il may be
reasonably supposed renders applications for Exc
cutivc clemency more numerous from year to year
Whence, then, the necessity of these fierce de-
nunciations of Governor Porter1 Does not this
simple array of figures stamp with the seal Of un-
qualified nfamy the assertion Of the federaiss, that
under the administration of David X. Porter the
psrdoning power has been "aJused9' Does it
not strike the common sense comprehension of ev-
cry man, that il has been used with the most spa
ring hand possible Let G0uernor Eorters caiuni-
nidtors meet these unanswerabh facts If THEY
DARE
Having disposed of the general charge made a
gains, Governor Porter of his having "abuSed" the
pardoning power, and shewn by incon,rovertble
facts, that it is UNFOUNDED, we proceed to elu-
cidae his conduct in reference to what is familiar
y known the
PARDON BEFORE TRIAL.
From the fierce ou,cry of the federal presses
against this particular act, The public night be led
to suppose, that it were unprecedented in the an
mails of the state, "someihins new under the sun"
How widely is this presumption, created and foster
ed for the vilest of party purposes of variance with
the honest TRUTH! How gross aud hlgran, the
IMPOSITION attempted to be practiced upon the
understanding of the people Let facts speak for
themselves.
Upon the Executive minutes for the year 1904,
find the record Of pardons, issued under the great
seal of state differing in single particular from.
that granted By Governor Porfy-Hcte are the
extracts, word for word, letter for letter.
! Commonwealth VS.. John Heart.
| Was charged before an Alderman of the city OF
Governor granted pardon.
In the above case it will be observed there nci.
ther trial nor conriciion. The pardon followed i'm
mediaely upon the charge. Here is another case,
precisely identical
Commonwealth VS.. Hugh Cunningham.
Was charged with forgery, in the county of
| Beaver, at November sessions, 1904 December 10,
1904, the Governor granted pardon.
In the above case again, it will be remarked, the
pardon followed Immediately on the fnos,eps of the
complaint. There ,cas neither triaino conpiction
Here follows another case, again, the reader will
remark, the pardon followed Immediately on the
footsteps of the complaint. There Icas neither irt-
al nor CONNECTION, which is also taken re,batm from
the Executive minutes of the proper date.
Commonwealth VS.. Thomas FIohau0r.
Was charged with larceny by the Grand Jury at
Mayors Court in the city of Philadelphia in Feb
ruary, 1906. February S, 1906, THE GovERNOR
GRANTED PARDON BEFORE TRIAL.
We ask the truth-oviny citizens of Pennsylva
MIA, WAS THIS NO PRECEDENT, In the
above case You will observe by reference To dates,
the information and the pardon were but A FEW
DAYS APART, and ii is distinctly aud uncqul-
vocly placed upon record, that the pardon was
granted BEFORE TRIAL!
Nor is this all. Upon the Executive minutes OF
the year ls0s we again find the following entities:
Commonwealth vs.. Thomas Mexican, jr. u RI,
ctQrd Dennis.
Were endicted al court of quarter sessions OF
the peace in Philadelphia county, in June 1907
the former for sending a chaanse, and the latter
for delivering and carrying challange. March
10, 1903 the Governor granted pardon.
, Commonwealth VS.. Thomas Mexican jr
Was indicted for sending challenge u Mi
chao Lieb at a court of quarter sessions in Fhlla
delphia county. October L. 1908, the Governo
y granted pardon.
In each of the FOREGOING cases, it will he agar
remarked the pardons followed the indictment, AM
y were consequently issued BEFORE TRIAL.
Here follow two other cases, ia which parlo
:, was granted before the court declared sentence
Commonwealth vs. U'iiGn ~ aRacr Aierana.
- Wallace and William .Nesbit
Were convicted of conspiracy to chea, and dc
fraud the creditors of VIM. w allace, at a court
70 quarter sessions, in Philadelphia, March 1906
., March 81, 1903, the Governor granted pardo
=, BEFORE SENTENCE.