Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-06-06
THURSDAY, JUNE l, 1864.
THAT PARDON AGAIN,

| THAT PARDON AGAIN.
The Pioneer expresses its surprise that so
large space should have been occupied by the
Times and the Minnesotian in discussing the mat
ter of Monroe's pardon, and attempting either
directly or by nsinuation, to throw blame upon
Gov. German, for the course he felt obliged to
take"
We have felt no disposition to bring this matter
before the public again, as we have expressed our
views freely upon the subject, but as the Pioneer
has assumed to defend the Governor, and to carry
the idea that we have done him injustice, it will
see the propriety of our recurrence to the subject
and plainly "de6ning our position.''
l. Did the facts on trial in the opinion Of the
jury warrant them in bringing in verdict of
''assault with intent to kill?'' The jury thought
they did,
2. Did Monroe violaie any law in the opinion
Of Judge Sherburne? He did.
3. Did the opinion of Judge Sherburne, or
Secretary Rosser, or any body else, that Monroe
was not guilty to the full extent of the crime for
which he had been committed, justify Gov. Cor
man in granting him unconditional pardon p
1t did not, and here is where we blame the Exec
utive in submitting to outside influences, instead
of consulting his own judgment and the effect his
course would have upon the public mind. If
Monroe was not guilty Of sassault with intent to
kil'' (twelve men said he was) but was guilty of
''assault and battery" only, why was he not al
lowed new trial? Why was he permitted to es-
cape all punishment because he was not guilty Gin
the opinion of one or two interested in his behaf)
of that which the Indictment charged him with
and the jury convicted him on? When the Gov
ernor was appealed to, eshould have said, {" Gen
temen, if the prisoner, in your opinion is not
guilty of the crime for which he was charged,
give him trial. He certainly has violated
the law to certain extent, according to your own
admission, and it does not lie within my power to
grant him an unconditional pardon. The only
and proper way for you to do is to have new
trial, and if the facts do not justify conviction
Of assault with intent to KILL | have faith to
believe that twelve men will not impose upon the
poor criminal an unjust verdict.' Had Gov.
German taken this course, no one could have
blamed him, the law would have been vindicated,
and justice done Monroe.
We cannot agree with our neighbor of the Pio-
neer that the Governor "was obliged by his duty
to release the prisoner from confinement and
odum which he was unjustly suffering" We do
not consider that it was the duty of the Executive
to have done any such thing. We consider his
Interference in the matter very injudicious, and
calculated to have bad effect upon the efficacy
of law, and the violators Of the public peace and
this is the reason why we have taken occasion to
utter our sentiments on the subject. The whole
matter can be summed up in a few words. Mon
roe was guilty of violating the law, but because
in the opinion Of several persons he was not gull
ty to that extent to which the Indictment charged
him, therefore he was granted an unconditional
pardon, and released from all punishment. If
this was right, then others can be liberated on the
same plea? II this was right, then law is but
name. If this was right, then other criminals
now in confinement, can avail themselves of the
clemency of the Governor, and thus in short
time mock at justice and ovcrrule the Judicial
Power of our Territory.
For the purpose Of setting this matter at rest,
we publish the facts in the case from gentleman
well conversant with them, trusting that shall
not have occasion to refer to the subject again.
At the last March term of the District Court for
Ramsey County, one Louis Monroe, "a colored
many was indicted for the crime of assaulting
with dangerous weapon one Moses Dixon, with
intent to kill said Dixon.
That indictment was formed by a grand jury
composed Of twenty of the most respectable, en-
lightened and sensible male citizens Of Ramsey
County.
The case at said term came on for trial, and
twelve unexceptionable jurymen were seated in
the jury box the defendant and his able counsel
having expressed themselves satisfied with the en-
tire panel. The prosecution showed in evidence
facts Of which the following is brief summary
That on the evening of the 2Sth of November
last, the defendant came to the restaurant kept by
said Dixon. on ST. Anthony street, in Saint Paul,
that while there, down cellar, in company with
several other persons of color, the defendant got
into quarrel with one Alfred Story, and the
two had scuff1c and produced great deal of
noise. Dixon, who at the time was up stairs,
on hearing the noise and having his attention
called to II, went below and ordered the defendant
out OF the house. The defendant went before
Dixon up the stairs and passed through small
rear room into the main cating-saloon in front,
while Dixon stopped in the rear room, to receive
some money and give change to a person there in
waiting for that purpose. The defendant as he
passed one of the witnesses who was seated about
two-thirds of the distance back from the front
entrance door of the saloon, cooked pistol in his
pocket. (The witness said the sound he heard he
was quite sure was the cooking of a pistol, and
that as no one but the defendant was near him it
must have been caused by the prisoner.) The
defendant advancing still farther towards the out
er door, and being in about the centre of the sa-
loon began making great noise and disturbance,
and said that if any person touched him, he would
make them sorry for it. Dixon then coming from
the back room ordered the defendant out Of the
house; the defendant said he was going but still
tarried and continued using profane and loud
words; after being ordered twice to leave and re-
plying and continuing to conduct himself in the
manner last mentioned, at each time that such
orders were given, he approached and stood near
the outer door with his right side towards the
same, and then and there drew pistol Qoaded,
as the defendant afterwards confessed to wit
ness, with powder and buck shot) and held said
weapon in his right hand, down BY his side, con-
cealed from the view of Dixon. The defendant
at this point having planted himself at the only
entrance to the house and continuing the noise
and disturbance aforesaid and that too at the hour
when customers most frequented the saloon,-
Dixon ordering him again to leave, approached
and moderately pushed him out of the door-the
force used being only sufficient to expel him from
the house. Dixon did not follow the defendant
nor step from the door but Immediately turned
and was about leaving the door when the defen-
dant at the distance Of only FIVE or six feet fred
said pistol with deadly aim upon said Dixon, one
Of the buck-shot with which the pistol was loaded
taking effect upon the wrist Of Dixon and glanc-
ing of so as as to pass through the muscle of the
same arm above the elbow, thereby preventing the