Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1874-11-24
ABOTT P1RDOJ,S.

in the following terms:
| "The governor shall have the power, uith The ad
rice and consent Of the council, to remit, after con
viction, all foratures and penalties, and to grant
reprieVes and pardons, except in cases OF lmpeach
me1t."
| 1t is indispensable that the pardoning pow
er shall rest somewhere, and every human
government recognizes this necessity. Many
governments lodge this power in the execu-
tive; nearly all our State governments in the
executive with consent and advice of council
or some other body and few States in spec
iai court Of Pardons. There are some advan-
taees in the last plan, as every application for
pardon can receive a thorough and Impartial
| adjudication. without a tenth part of the risk
of being overcome by mere pressure tina,
there is where the executive alone, or the ex-
ecutiye and few advisers depending popu-
lar election, have the pardoning power. The
danger is, not that the pardoning power will
be exercised too little, but too much. Not
that pardons will be withheld in cases unms
takably calling for the exercise of power
wisely reserved for exigencies which neither
laws nor courts can meet; but that, under the
pressure ofnfluence and the natural tenden-
cy to forget the crime in our sympathy for the
criminal, penalties will be so often lifted as to
y
their crimes are discovered, If they are arrest
ed, and ifthey are convicted, then there will
be good reason to expect pardon.
The pardoning power is often criticised for a
too free exercise of this prerogative; but we
are sure if the critics understood the pressure
which is brought to bear by the friends of
convicts to secure pardons; ifthey understood
the readiness with which nearly every citizen
sgne petition for pardon, and the pertinac-
ity with which friends and counsel pursue
their object, they would express surprise that
the executive and council do not oftener yield,
For example there have been, the past year,
we believe, more than fifty applications for
pardon of convicts in the State prison. Near
ly all the petitions have been numerously
signed by the ''best citizens" in the coTmun-
tiles from which the convicts were sentenced.
Able counsel have presented and urged the
applications. And yet only two or three par
dons have been granted, and those only few
weeks before close of sentence, or on account
Of the serious illness OF the convict.
1t is certainly surprising that SO many good
citizens should unfortunately sign petitions
for pardon, without carefully considering the
bearings of the subject. 1t is to be expected
that relatives ola convict will allow sympathy
for their own kin to control; but citizens gen.
orally should remember that sympathy alone
is an unsafe guide, when the protection of So
ciety is the object aimed at in punishment.
We recently saw letter from a lady relative
of person who is serving fe-sentence for
murder, in which she earnestly urged the par
don of the prisoner on the ground that he
committed the crime when intoxicated; but
that he had now reformed, and would prove a
good citizen. And she added, feelingly: "Do
not, pray, be so hari-hearted as to refuse
the pardon for which hundreds have asked.
1t would surely be Christ-like, and God would
forever bless you"
Taking this as a test case, let us ask all
thoughtful citizens what good or safe ground
there is for the Intervention of the pardoning
power. The convict has confessedly commit
ted murder, and in punishment for his crime
is fserving out sentence for life. 1t is
claimed, however-and we will admit the
claim to be rue,-that the crime was COM
mitted when the person was under the intlu-
ence of liquor and that now the prisoner
gives evidence of being truly reformed The
fact that man was intoxicated when he COM
mitted a crime, cannot be safely held to ex-
cuse him from punishment. When men put
to their lips what they know will make them
devils, they must be held accountable. Un-
doubleday oftentmes this fact justifes courts
in mitigating punishment; but as all the cir
cumstances are duly considered at the time OF
trial, the pardoning-power should not inter-
fere on that account alone. Besides, mercy
to a convict, in majority of cases, would
call for his detention where his appetite could
not get the control of him, as the chances are
it too often would, if he were released.
Ought mere sympathy for convict to be
allowed to weigh with the pardoning power !?
If SO, we are sure that few applications for
pardon would fail. 1t is not difficult to i'm.
agine that there are circumstances in almost
every case-crime committed under the in
huence of liquor, indications of sincere repen'
lance, weeping wives and daughters, dis
tressed friends, which call forth the sympa-
thy of the governor and council. II sympa-
thy alone should control, a majority of con-
victs would be let loose at once DO not i'm
agin that those who are responsible for the use
of the pardoning power are ''hard-hearted,
because their better judgment tells them that
| the safety of society demands that the laws
| should take their course, except under
rare circumstances clearly calling for the in
| vention of the pardoning power
What is the object of punishment as a pen
atty for crime? All agree that it is the pro-
| lection of society. This protection is secured
not simply by incareerating the offender so
that he may not repeat his crime, and If pos
| sible so as to secure his reformation; but also
ana most euectIFeiy ny ueteFTinb tne eNli-uIs-
posed from committing similar offence
against the peace of society, by the example
of the punishment OF an offender. Many
persons seem to think that the first consider
alton is the only one, when it is far from that.
Thousands OF evil disposed or weak persons
are deferred from offences against society
| simply by fear of punishment; and every
time crimes are unpublished, or the punish
ment provided by law lifted by pardon for a
light reason, it tends to lesson that fear by
| creating an impression that punishment is
likely to be avoided. Therefore it is not suf-
ficient cause for a pardon that the offender
has reformed, aud probably will not repeat his
crime. Back Of this, there must be another
inquiry, viz 'Are there such manifest and
cogent reasons for the Intervention of the par
doning power, as will not tend to lesson the
fear of punishment in the minds Of the evil
disposed?"
1t is impossible. OF course, to outline any
safe and proper ground for pardon in excep-
tional cases. The pardoning power should of
course presume that the law has fixed the
nroner nepaIty for crime and that the con rts