The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1869-04-22
Tne GOVERNORS veto.

A good deal of newspaper discussion has
been ELECTED in consequences of a veto by the
Governor, of law passed by the Legisla-
turs empowering him to commute the death
penalty to imprisonment for life in the PEN
itentiary. The veto. which of course was
written by Attorney General Brewster, is
sound in its reasoning and will meet with
general approval. 1t seems to Us that In
complicated case of murder, involving
large amount of testimony, Governor. we
care not who he may be or whether lawyer
or laymaD, would be very sunsafe person
to decide, not upon the guilt or innocence OF
the defendant, but on the degree of his guilt,
because that was the precise question which
the law submitted to him for his delibera-
ton. He would be an entire stranger to the
parties and would not have heard the testi-
mony of the witnesses, and thus have been
enabled to Judge Of their ability and opportu-
mites Of knowing the truth of the facts about
which they testified. These and various
other considerations, present at the trial and
which have their proper weight with Jurles'
would disqualify him, ct least IN many IN
stances. from arriving at an intelligent un-
derstanding of the true merits of the case
Besides. If he could so govern himself as not
to permit his judgment to be CONTROLLED Ly
the personal appeals of the relatiyee aud
friends Of the prisoner, he would be less than
human.
While we are, therefore, opposed to vest
! ing This power in the Governor, we are just
as well satisfied that the power to commute
the death penalty to imprisonment for life
! ought to be lodged somewhere. OF course
the power would be but seldom exercised,
! for the reason that verdcts Of murder in the
! frst degree are in most cases in accordance
with the evidence, and would not therefore
be disturbed. But that there have been aud
! will Ee cases ir which, although the jury
| has rendered the highest verdict known to
| the law, yet in which, from many circum-
stances, the life of the criminal ought to be
spared, is fact not to be disputed. We
! think that the case of Gerald Eaton. who
was recently executed in Philadelphia, was
| an instance of the kind. In what tribunal,
then, should this power of commutation be
vested OF necessity either in the judges
! or the iury bsiJre whom the prisoner has
| been tried. In one State at least, Illinois,
a Jury in rendering a verdict Of guilty Of
murder in the first degree may state in
their verdict whether the defendant shall
suffer death or be imprisoned for life.
wv 4, bA
of the Courts Could any possible harm to
| society result from it We think not
| They heard all the evidence detailed by
the witnesses. as we'll as their manner of
stating they have weighed it well and
have given it due and careful consideration
all the facts and surroundings Of the case
are farnilisr to thsm; and, besides al this,
! from the very nature Of their Office they
would be exempt from any undue Influence
from personal appeals or other outside In
! reference.
If a change should be made in the law it is
manifest to Us that the judges ought to be
the custodians of the power. The true re-
! form, however, would be to go to the root OF
| the evil at once and abolish capital punish
! ment. But we do not look for this change
in our penal laws to be effected under the
present state of popular opinion on the sub
| isct. That it will eventually take placs ws
| believe and hope. We echo the senti-
ments of Horace Greoly. who in recent
article on the death penalty said
oHere then. we take our stand. rUntil it
| co, he shown (as in the nature of things IT.
| never can be) that judges are lntalllao4e IN
! Judgment and that jurors cannot err IN their
| finding we insist that the law has no rlsht,
| according to its own theories, so to dispose OF
any respOndent as to put it out of its own DOW
| er TO redress an injury or to correct nlstaAe.
| Hanging presupposes omnipotence and omnls-
! cience. In all ther human affairs we trust
the disclosures of time. and patiently or lmPa-
| tisntly wait for the developments OF cIrcum-
stances. In hanging we assume that no new
| o,-idoroe can be discovered, that every witness
has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, that the Court had made no 10 Is
take in its law, that the jury has been enure!y
faithful in the discharge OF its duties' tndL Al
all things it has acted intell1gently ana th"I
! LEGAL science will never hereafter be able to
| find flaw in the Indictment. We take issue
| here. We say that precision and certainty like
| this are impossible and, whatever may be our
judicial machinery, must always remain I'M
possible. We say further that experience IN
| quite large number OF cases mas sho"h thas
even confession is not to be relied upon as con
elusive evidence of guilt, and that Without
such evidence the law is continually falsifying
its own dictum that it is better that ten guilty
men should escape than one innocent man
should suffer. Y es we begin in doubt, 60 on
in doubt, and end in doubt, the only certain
thing being the death of our victim
%SINGULAR INCIDENT Recently, a citizen
| ofBurlington, New York, upon going to an
! upper chamber used as = sleeping apartment