Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1873-08-18

EXECUTIVE PARDoNs.
This subject Is creating considerable
discussion in the Eastern press and 10
moreover one which, in view Of the
amount Of crime existing in the land
aud the frequent abuse Of the pardon
Ing power by executives, Is worthy
the attention Of every conservator Of
public order and safety. In States
where this power has been solely vest
ed In the Governor, Its unworthy ex-
erolsc has loudly called for, aud In
Iowa hasbeen succeeded by a change.
In the State above mentioned the new
code which goes Into effect on the lst
proximo Is especially notable for Its
infringement on the almost universal
right Of the Executive. When this
code shall take effect. the Governor
Of that State will no longer retain the
authority to pardon q criminal cou-
vlcted Of murder In the first degree.
II In his opinion there Is good ground
for %pardouing n prisoner, he Is requir-
cd to set forth his reasons 10 that eff
feet. These reasons must be exhibit
ed In the form Of a notice and pub
llshed for four successive weeks before
the assembling Of the Legislature both
In a newspaper published at the State
Capital and in another published In the
county where the criminal was convict.
cd. When the Legislature assemblies the
Governor is required to submit what
ever reasons he may have for the pro-
posed exercise Of clemeucy, and tho
Legislature Is to be the Judge whether
or not they arc such a. to justify its
favorable action. The power Of par
don lies by this method In Its hands
and 1t Ia required to decide the fate Of
the prisoner BY acceding to or refus-
ing to grant his petition. It strikes US
that this Il an innovation which will
work we'll. There are few good rea-
soma, In u opinion, why the Govern
or Of a State, or the Executive Of a
nation should have a power so supe-
rlor to that Of juries and courts, as
that, which, at his option, may over
ride their decisions. 1t will be OBJ
served that the Iowa code only limits
or wlthholds this power from the ES-
ecutlye In cases where the criminal
has been convicted OF murder in the
first degree. The principle. II correct,
should. however, DO extended to alt
classes Of criminals, and all cases OF
lcnIency to convicted evil doors go to
the Lawmakers of the State, under
whose legislation the act committed
was declared criminal, and under the
authority Of whose statutes the scn-
tence has been pronounced aud Is be-
Ing carried into execution. 1t Is ditf.
cult, Oh general principles. to under
stand why the power Of the Governor,
to pardon a criminal, should be con-
ferred any more than the power to
convict Of crime. If the Judgment and
sentence OF u court are to be set aside,
1t would seem proper that either the
court itself should have the power TO
render nugatory Its acts, or that the
pardonlng power should be vested in
that body By whose acts courts are gov
erned, and to whom they look for laws
and penalties. Or. In another view,
that As the pardoning power Is discre-
tionary, a question Of judgment, those
who most intimately represent the
people. aud who are most directly In
contact with them. should repre-
sent the popular will In considerations
Of clemcucy, - In other cases Of legis-
lation. The question will, however,
bear discussion, and there are strong
arguments on the other side.