The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-09-23

10 Une petuOn.
Mr. ONeill informs us that he has never
signed pardon petition in his life, and that
the Charles O'Neill who figures in the pardon
record is the late Receiver of Taxes. We
are very glad to do justice to these gentle
men, and also to oblige the writer of the fol-
lowing communication by publishing it,
PHILADELPHIA, Sept q, 1859.
To the Editor Of The EUening Telegraph.
Permit me to add several reasons, on file In the
proper department at Harrisburg but not given IN
your article, '"The Pardoning Power" DIST instant
for the pardons of Nos. 13 Wiuam Kraf0 ana 80
The Of Kraft was familiar to me in all its de-
TAILS and presented the not unfrequent occurrence
OF an honest, upright man committing crime IN a
manner neXplicabe to his friends and even to him
SELF The ofense was undoubtedly his first, and his
uniform good conduct during more than eight gears
OF imprisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary salts
ned all acquainted with the case that he was pro
per subject for Executive clemencyi hence the
pardon
my regiment ana served faithfully until the close OF
the Rebellion. Discharged in 1865 not twenty years
OF age (at the time Of his enlistment he was scarce
sXteen), without trade, and out of employment he
became the dupe of designing men, and having been
made drunk, he induced to enter house through
window too small for the ingress OF his larger con-
federates, and was there arrested a burglar.
May not the gentlemen who, like myself, have
signed petitions for pardOns In the above cases, or
in the other by you quoted have been actuated
by better motives than desire to grind liHle aces,
and do you think It in all respects just to sgmatize
all whose names you publish as 'pqrdon byOkerS?"
Respectfully yours, LOUIS WAGNER.
We had no intention of stigmatizilg al
whose names appeared in the list of cases
published on Tuesday as pardon brokers'"
and no such meaning can be deduced from
our language. We quoted the cases as they
stood on the record, and gave the names as
they appeared.
What we said was:-
1--WE have here quoted but small number of the
pardons granted, but they will be sufficient to show
the class Of men upon whose application the Gov
ernor was induced to interfere. ThroughoW the
WhOLe pardon list d the names Of oetk1otCn local
and State politicians each Of lChOn1 has his little a1e to
grind, each of tohO erpectS to obtain influence at
his Influence in matters of Ibis kind, and the GoG-
ernor is ready 10 oblige them because they may do him
Ssye Cr % here % ad a. hare e @ one Of be wres v
which the politics of the State are reguated and
the spectacle is edifyng, if not altogether agree
able"
During the year 1868 Governor Geary
granted one hundred and six pardons; and
prominent among the names of the petition
ers we find w. w. Watt, who figures nine
times; Samuel Josephs, four times; James V.
Stokes, six times; John G. Butler, five times;
| Thomas NJ Marshal, eight times; James
| Subers, four times; William b. Mann, five
times; David Foy, five times E. w. Davis,
four times; G. F. Kleckner, five times; and
| fully four-ffths of the applicants
are local and State politicians. The
names of well-known merchants and
respectable business men are seen so
rarely that we have a right to believe that
the pardons granted upon their recommends
ton may have had some merit 1t is very
IL. Al, ,Ic
strongly convinced that these men had in
fuence with the Governor, and it needs no
argument to show that this influence was
based upon mutual spirit of accommodation
between the Executive, the members of the
Legislature, and other political wire-pullers.
With regard to the cases mentioned by General
Wagner, we know nothing about them, except
that the reasons assigned in the Governors
report are frivolous and unsatisfactory.
One thing is certain: crimes of all kinds are
alarmingly on the increase, and we demand,
in the name of justice and for the security
of society, that criminals shall be punished
with the utmost rigor of the law that when
men are convicted of great offenses, they
shall not be turned loose again to prey
upon the community; and to give encourage
ment to others to violate the law. We de
mand that pardons shall cease to be granted
for such reasons as that she is we'll inten
toned" that che is repentant;" that she is
monomaniac on the subject of horse stealing;
that ''his reasons for committing such an(
such crimes are inexplicable;" that ''h
is respectfully connected;" that 'h
has large circle of friend
and acquaintance who desire his re
lease, and others of like character that figur
in the vast majority of the pardons granted
} Governor Geary's own report, to go M
further, shows that he has not used the par
doning power with discretion, or in name
shall be put upon the misdeeds of the crimi
: nails who infest the community and make lif
| and property unsafe. An appeal from politi
} clans, many of whose characters are no bette
than those of the jail-birds for whom they s.
persistently intercede, is generally sufficien
to secure the liberation of men convicted O
Manslaughter, Larceny, Riot, Arson, and othe
offenses.
Since the publication of our article O
Tuesday, a case has been brought to our nc
tice which will illustrate our argument agains
} Governor Geary more forcibly than any W
have yet quoted. The case is that of Jane
Sanford and James Demot charged with 'cal
, rying concealed weapons, and admitted to ba
in the town of York in 1866 They disappeared
and the personswho entered bail for them al