Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1874-10-29
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

The action of Governor Dingley in is
suing his warrant for the execution Of
Wagner is in strict conformity to the law
of the State. Those who object to hang
ing must have their quarrel with the law
and not with the Governor who is bound
BY his oath to execute it. The law in re-
gard to capital punishment distinctly states
that in cases where sentence of death has
been passed, the record and evidence shall
be transmitted to the governor and council
who shall then review the whole case, and
unless they think proper to pardon the con-
yict or commute his sentence the governor
shall issue his warrant for execution. Sec
ton g of chapter 1876 of the Revised Stat
utes is as follows:
Upon receiving such record and evil
dence, it shall be the duty of the governor
case, and unless they think proper to par
don the convict, or commute his sentence.
the governor shall upon the expiration OF
one wear, after the day of the sentence,
issue his warrant, as provided in sections
nine and ten of this chapter"
The view which Governor Dingley takes
of the law as it stands was clearly made
known BY him in his annual message to
the legislature last winter, in which he
called attention to the anomalous provis-
ion of the statute We republish that por-
ton of his message as the best exposition
- u. n~A IA tho
criticisms unfriendly to him called out by
tho Wagner case.
"In view of criticisms which have found ex-
preston, not only in public journals, but even
in courts Of justice, / should fail to discharge
the duty imposed upon me, If did not direct
your attention to the anomalous provision OF
our lststues for the punishment Of the crime
Of murder in the fret degree, since the legis-
lation Of 1869. In contravention of well.set-
tied principles Of government, this statute
fails to preserve the wise distribution OF pow.
ers contemplated by the trainers of the con-
stitution, in that it imposes upon the executive
department the duties and responsibilities OF a
court Of reviews function clearly judicial
rather than executive.
By this statute it is made the imperative
duty of the governor and council to carefully
review the evidence and proceedings in every
case and then to decide whether the sentence
OF the court imposing the punishment provid-
ed by law, shall stand, or another penalty be
substituted. Practically, the determination OF
this extraordinary court OF review-in which
each member 10 Law unto himself,-is con.
trolled BY majority Of the council; for
sense of the improperly of one and the same
person acting both Is judge and executioner,
has in every case that has arisen under the
law, restrained the executive from assuming
the grave responsibility of overriding the ac-
ton Of the council when that body has voted
In favor of communication. When the council
have voted otherwise, as they have done only
in single case since the enactment of the
statute Of 1866, the executive has issued his
warrant, - then clearly required by law.
It will be observed that the statute require
ment to which your attention is called, is ad
ditional to, and even inconsistent with the de.
sign Of the pardoning power conferred upon the
executive by the constitution. The latter is a
constitutional prerogative, designed not as an
ordinary provision for revising theproceedings
of the courts, but simply as an exceptional re-
sort in extraordinary cases, over which 1t was
intended that neither the legislative n0r judi
cial department should have control, and for
the exercise of which the executive depart
ment should be solely responsible. Butthe
IOfmeE - = btotutc uuly impOsSu upoH thc ga
ecutivs department, requiring "review" o.
every case, and almost inviting the exercise
of the psrdoning power as if the legislature
contemplated that modification of sentence
should be the rule instead of the exception.
A. the constitution makes ample provision
for any exisency demanding the Intervention
Of the pardohing power, it seems to me emf
nently desirable that our statutes should es-
tablish such penalty for the crime Of murder
~ the iaw-making power expects to have
uniformly executed. To incorporate in them
provision looking to the modification after
conviction and sentence of the penalty pro-
vided, 10 not only to create in the administra-
tors Of the Law more than suspicion that the
punishment nominally established was not de-
signed to be executed, but also to deprive the
Law Of that wholesome influence over the evil
disposed, which comes from the conviction
that no one adjudged guilty can avoid the
uniform and impartial enforcement of what
ever penalty the legislature may under all cir
cumstances consider best calculated to pro-
tect society"