The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-01-11
HARRIsBURa.

SINGULAR CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE Ex-
EoUTIvE-HE REFUSES AN INSPECTION OF THE
BEooRDs-wHo RECOMMENDED lands PAR
DoN-AN IMPORTANT PROPOSED CHANGE 1NTHE
MECHANICS LIEN LAW.
From Ottr OICn Correspondent
HARRISBURG, Jan. 10, 1871.
When Governor Geary assumed the executive
Office he obliterated nearly all the rules which
had governed his predecessors, and in no one
Instance did he make so clean q sweep as he
did with the precedent which had governed pre-
vious executives with reference to the pardon
business. While intimatng that great fraud
had been heretofore practised in the procuration
of pardons he announced new series of rules,
which he had published in every newspaper in
the State. In these he prescribed that no par
dons would be granted or petitions for pardons
entertained unless publication of the applica-
ton had been made in the county where the
offense had taken place, and the judges and
District Attorney, counsel and prosecutors, aud
a majority of the jury had signed the applica-
tion. Prior to his coming into Office it had been
the custom of the Governors to solicit informa-
tion from the courts and District Attorney. He
not only ignored this precedent, but he has also
deViated materially from the course adopted
for himself. AS far as Philadelphia
Is concerned he leaves the District
Attorney out of the question, and merely noti-
6es the court that an application has been made
for pardon. This compels the judges to vol
unteer all information, and no case has yet been
known since the induction of the present Execu-
tive In which the judges of Philadelphia have
taken cognizance of the simple notification fur
nished them. His number of pardons has been
greatly diminished from those granted in years
gone by; but while that is so, 1t must be borne
In mind that some of the criminals whose sem
fences he has remitted are among the worst
who could be thrown upon society. in
point has come to the knowledge of those who
frequent the Hill. 1t is that of John Miller, who
was sentenced at Reading, in Novemb er last, to
an Imprisonment of six years for two offenses,
both of which consisted of his having broken
into the rooms of two hotel boarders at that
place. and robbing the inmates of their valua-
bles After serving for one month, this fellow
was pardoned, for the reason that he had re-
spectacle connections, and the punishment
already suffered was sufficient in the eyes of the
law.
No publication had been made of the applica-
tion for pardon, and no information had been
solicited of the court or District Attorney. In
deed the most surprised man in Berks county
was the felon himself when the pardon was
handed him. This action of Governor Geary
has so exasperated the citizens of Berks county,
who knew nothing of the matter until the re-
lease of Miller, that they are condemnng the
Governor in language anything but compli-
mentary. The papers are boldly charging that
the respectable connections of Miller are the
roughs of Philadelphia who have managed by
means of money to procure his release, and
they do not hesitate to proclaim that the cash
was used on the Hill.
THE CASE OF DIR. SIMON NJ. lands.
In looking over the pardon report for 1870,
which the Governor conceived of such vital ina
portance as to attach it to the early editions of
his annual message sent all over the State, 1t
will be noticed that in all cases save one the
names of those applying for the pardon are
mentioned. The one exception is that of DR..
Lands, who was sentenced to an imprisonment
by Judge Peirce of one year, for the publication
of an obscene work. The peculiarly remark
able exclusion of names in this, above all cases.
naturally excited the curiosity of the correspon-
dent of THE EVENING TELEGRAPH. That gen.
tleman repaired to the State Department, where
the papers in support of the applications for par
don are kept, as 1t has been since ascertained
in consequence of q want of room for them in
the Executive Department On inquiry, the
papers in this case were produced, and it was
then discovered that there was not on file, as is
usual, the formal petition.
But few papers were there in support of the
pardon, which had been granted without the
knowledge of any one concerned in the case
except the counsel and family of the prisoner.
They comprised very small package, and con-
sisted of an affidavit of the Doctor himself, and
letters from Drs. Joseph s. Longshore and
James McClintock, of Philadelphia. and Owen
G. Chase, member of the Legislature of West
Virginia. DR.. Longshore certifes that the work
was one of the purest character. DR.. McClin-
took could not discover anything in 1t obscene
or demoralizng and Mr. Chase considered it a
reformatory work, and not an obscene one, and
he further conceived that DR.. Landis had been
condemned by his professional opponents.
These were all the documents which could be
found.
An effort to obtain a copy of them was at first
granted, and on going prepared to do the work,
it was discovered that the Governor had issued
an order prohibiting any further inspection of
the records which were the evidence on which
he had remitted the sentence of criminal in
whose trial all Philadelphia had manifested the
deepest interest. In addition to this injunction,
a portion of the letters which were there
on the first call made by your correspondent
had been removed, and in all probability de-
stroyed. This conduct looks exceedingly singu-
lar and it ia fair to infer that in no one respect
were the rigid rules established by the Governor
observed-District Attorney Sheppard at least
having had no official notice served upon him
If the application were advertised, it appeared
in some newspaper where it never was seen,
and that the public had no idea of the intention
upon the part of the Governor was evident
from the surprise which was manifested when
the announcement was made that Lands had
been released from his prison cell.