Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-06-06
THAT PARDON ONCE MORE.

We are som ewhat surprised, as we'll amused
at the course the Pioneer is pursuing relative to
''that pardon,' for we did think that our neigh
Dor would not seek to do an intentional in us
tice in discussion of this nature. However,
when certain ends are to be gained, certain means
must be used, and as the Pioncer is in tight
place, we do not blame it for using extraordinary
efforts to get out of it. In the very second line of
its article it deviates from the truth by asserting
that we gave ''pretended detail of the evidence
That evidence was obtained from the District At
torncy, Mr.. Cooley, sanctioned AMI backed up by
Geo. l.. Becker, Esq. assistant counsel in the case
Now then, if the evidence given, wasa ''pretendcd
detail" then both Mr.. Cooley and Mr.. Becker
'pretendcd detail' for the proof of which let the
editor of the Pioneer read the following, over the
gentlemcn's own signatures =
A CARD.-An article having appeared in the
Daily Pioneer Of the I'd inst, questioning the
statement Of facts, respecting the case and par
don of Monroe that appeared in the Daily Times
of the LIST inst, we take this occasion to say that
the statement there made is true in every respect.
ID. G. COOLEY,
GEO. l.. BECKER,
Attorneys for the Prosecution.
juno Sd, 1854.
Again, says the Pioneer: s'With this evidence
before the jury Gov. GoRMAN had nothing to do.''
What in pardoning criminal the Governor
has nothing to do with the evidence before the u-
ry! Very well. Suppose now that twelve men
convict man of murder-the judge thinks the
evidence does not warrant such a conviction, but
merely that of man-slaughter-he makes the fact
known to the Exccutive,-the Executive throws
out the evidence of the jury, takes the word of
the judge, and grants the man an unconditional
pardon. Is this the way the Pioneer would deal
out justice? If the Governor had no authority to
grant new trial, (and we have never claimed he
had) the judicial power certainly had, and why
was not that trial granted? The Pioneer editor
knows as we'll as we do. But it continues -
s'The prisoner was convicted of felony, pun
ishable by Imprisonment in the penitentiary,
whereas, according to the highest testimony his
only offence was simple misdemeanor, punisha-
BILE at the hardest by mere confinement in the
county jail"
And yet, because he was not guilty of the first
offence, therefore he should escape all punishment.
The principle is wrong one, and cannot be sus-
tanned by sophistry, reason or common sense.
The Pioneer labors under great mistake, when
it says that we have brought charges s'against
gentlemen of hitherto irreproachable character of
the crime of collision to thwart the ends of JUS
tice and rob the penitentiary of its victim" We
have done no such thing, but in all our articles
have stated explicitly that we attributed no "bad
motives, no collision or skullduggery" to the
gentlemen in question. The paragraph upon
which the editor of the Pioneer predicated his
marks, was penned BY the District Attorney, and
if it is charge of serious nature the editor
would believe, the writer stands ready to SUBJ
stantiate it by abundant proof. This ring on the
Times won't take, Mr.. Pioneer, and if any one in
this matter is worthy of the name Of sslibeller,"
the odium justly falls on your head.