Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-11-23
CanffaI pnutsnu,an

, FEcULTARITtEs CT TsE LAW IN NAINs-MuR-
DSRxRs IN prison IN THAT STATE.
The L-ws-cu he.l journal, whoss chic
owner Is Gov DinglSy, Of that state. say:
81 he g. neral discussion II the Wagner case
by the press CT the state has brought the con-
clifton OF our LAS against murder % the stten-
ton OF tie people, AZ there i a prospect IN AZ
the next legislature will take some action with
reference 70 them. II Il vel understood that
Tor many years previous to 1879 whjla chr Ia ~
in terms declared that the penalty for murder
In the hrst degree should be death, vet they
omitted any requirement for the "review" OF
the Cases with reference to Communication, or for
the issue OF warrant of eNecu ION OF septancs
IN other words, II came t. be understOod-al,
though the way In which II came about WAS
faTcical-thst no convicted murderer ehonlt ia
executed except crime committed in the
state prison.
In 1859 the condition of our laws against
murder led % an agitation of the subject in tae
legislature, which resulted in the enactment Of
law that imposed upon the governor and
council the duty Of reviewing" each case prIor
! 10 the expiration OF a year after sentence with
reference TO seeing whether there WAS cause TOR
pardon OF oommutatiop; and further required
/ the governor TO issue has warrant immedataly
after the end OF the year for tue execution of the
sentence, unless the council advised commuta-
{ ton or pardon. In other words, the significant
change in the statute was that while unter the
old law there need he 10 review, commit Atom
or is-ue OF warrant; under the new law there
must be review IA each case and the governor
WAS iuperatiyely required % issue his warrant
| II tie council refused TO advise communication.
: But At The same time, the Law, while requiring
a 8 view" and practical re-trial of every cs.s
/ iald down 20 basis or principles on which the
! 'eView should be conducted: but left so i'm
! Dor slit a matter % the varying feelings pre-
! JndlCts, ana Judgment OF the majority or the
persons who happened to be councillors. This
LIT every council open to the criticisms of per
IONS Who do not look with favor upon their
decisions, and resulted IN n uncertain nm
uniform, and partial execution Of the law. For
example, the council OF So FTactics Tx decided
I that UNDER the law IL was intended IN AZ yer,
senen nee should We COmm1tei. EXCEPT for m1r-
der, in the state prison; while that of 1874 de-
cldta that the law Of lSo9 aid not contemplate
cGmmutatioD unless evidence which had coma
10 light since the trial raised reasonable doubt
as to the correctness of the verdict OF tended TO
materially mitigate the crime.
80 far as We have observed, not a single papsr
IN The state has approved the present law. The
Portland Argus, Belfast Age and other papers
v men favor the death penalty have limited
with the Portland Press, GOSPEL Kramer. R1cE-
laD| Gazette and other papers which favor i'm
FrlsHnInent for life, in urging the legislature 10
enaci - Oh a penalty for murder in the first de-
gree as the law making power sxpects To hava
uniformly executed, leaving any nOd!ication
Of sentence In exceptional cases TO the execu-
i've department under the pardOning pSsroga-
tive OF the constitution, as in the case of other
crimes. The Bangor Wing has presented this
view OF the case in a most convincing manner;
and the PASSPORT Sentinel, Gardiner Home
journal, and other papers, while urging that
the penalty be made imprisonment for life
have taken ground in favor of a manly sOlutioD
Of the question by the legislature, without anv
ting an improper responsibility upon seven ex-
tcut1Ve COunClllOrs-to say nothing of the nm
pleasant position in which IL puts the governor
who is required to ''Teview" each case with the
council, thereby creating the immersion that
lie has controlling influence in the decision.
while al the same time he is compelled TO issne
vibrant for execution soon as four cOun-
clilOTs refuse 10 commute.
mere are row seven persons in the stata
PRISON nnGer sentence OF death, whose sentences
nave never been committed. Three of them
george Knight, Joel g. Prebie an1 PatrIrk
GTith1, AL from AndrOScOggin cOuuty-were
sentenced before the present law was enacted
and, therefore, their cases have ALWAYS been
held TO come under the old statute, which did
not specifically require either q reyisWD or
The execution OF sentence at the end OF The wear
Cleveland was sentenced in 1863, after the en-
aCJment OF the new law, which requires 81 re-
view" and the issue of the warrant at the end
Ct the statute year; but Gov. Chamberlain and
Els counch decided, under advice of members
OF the court, That some peculiar circumstances
rendered it a matter of grave doubt "a fo
whether any action could Ue legally taken in
LIS case, ana cOnseq uently nOue was taken
Inc three remaining cOnyIcts in prison under
sentence OF death are Wagner, whose case was
" reviewed at the end of the statute wear in
september; Gordon, in whose case the wear
sentence viii expire next January, and Lowell
N " nose case tie year will expire next Nav
Practically, therefore, the law relating TO "a.
view and execution, AS IL now exists on the
statute, applies only 70 the cases of Wsgper
Gordon and Lowell. and all other convicts who
may hereafter be sentenced TO suffer death 81
long as the statute remains IS it is. The very
general expression or opinion IN favor of A re-
peal OF the - review" provision of the law. and
an enactment or a uniform penalty for murder
ID the first degree, will, we trust, secure these
ends; although there may be some jilfruI-v
sha! be.