The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-05-26
PARDoNs.

PARD0HS.
There is no probability that the political
criminals of Louisiana are going to be tried
and convicted, or if thus consigned to well
deserved punishment it is not likely that the
conviction will be the act of the Federal
eourt. Therefore the rules governing the
Department Of Justice q. Washington respect
ing pardons will not have much interest here.
Yet as an expression of the ideas Of clear
headed and able lawyer on the subject Of
Executive pardons we quote part OF an
order dated May II, issued by Hon. Edwards
Pierrepont, Attorney General
The order is addressed to the various Dis
frict Attorneys Of the United States. who are
called upon to take notice Of it:
To the end that pardons may not be granted
unadvisedly and against the best interests OF
rood government, all applications for Execu-
Tive ciemency through this department must
be made hereafter upon the sworn petition OF
some credible person, stating, as nearly as
NAV be. the age, nativity, and prior occupa-
ton of the party imprisoned; stating also the
name of the Judge who resided at the triai,
and the name of the District Attorneys who
conducted the prosecution, and whether the
applicant for pardon has ever before been
convicted of crime. The petition and all let
ters in support thereof must state explicitly the
reasons why the Executive clemency Is IN
yoked to abrogate or change the sentence
Of the court; and no motives urged upon this
DEPARTMENT will be considered unless the
seme are stated in writing, signed by the
parties urging them, and filed for permanent
record and publicity in case the pardon Is
granted. The application must be accom-
panied by evidence that notice of the petition
and of all supporting documents has been
served upon the Judge who presided at the
trial, and upon the District Attorney OF the
district wherein the trial was had, when such
service Of notice is practicable, at least ten
days before the petition is presented to the
President It shall be the duty Of the Dis
trict Attorney, whenever any application
shall be referred to him for report, to ask
the Judge who pronounced sentence for his
opinion upon the merits of the application,
and to have the answer Of the Judge accom-
pany the report of the District Attorney
whenever such answer can be obtained.
These rules seem to be very well adapted to
their purpose, which is evidently to enable
the President to know, without further in
quiry, whether petition for pardon ought to
DO entertained.
The wise and wholesome prerogative of
Executive clemency is one that cannot be
properly dispensed with, and one which be-
longs by peculiar fitness to the Sovereign,
the President, or the Governor. 1t is not
proper that its exercise should be put into the
hands of judges and jurors who ought at ell
times to exercise their functions deliberately,
yet without the reserved power to set aside
their own verdict and rulings. Judges
would not be duly cautious as to the effect of
their charges if it were left in their power to
shorten the term of penal service or to remit
penalties altogether at their discretion.
The offense of the criminal, in the intend
ment of the law, is against the whole State, and
II is therefore appropriate that the preroga-
tive of clemency should be placed primarily
in the hands Of the Chief Magistrate of the
State, subject to such checks of one or both
branches of the legislative department as
may be considered judicious.
The granting of pardon ought not to be |
the result of mere sentiment It is not mat |
ter personal to the Executive. 1t is question |
that pertains to and hinges upon the welfare |
Of the State. When petition Of pardon is
received the Executive presumes prima facie
that the criminals sentence was deserved and |
Just and that it should be executed if no rea-
gop TO the contrary is disclosed. What are
ksisged Is reasons must, therefore, be care !
fully weighed both as to their truth and their
validity.
It is not o very difficult thing to get wit |
nesses to 60 into court, in the presence ct
hundreds, under the awe of present authois-
y, after the solemnity of an oath, and under
the threat of the bitter penalty of perjury,
there to give evidence which they know to be
false But the signers of a petition for par
dom are not under oath, and are therefore
often careless in their statements. The very
men who, as jurors, awarded verdict OF con-
demnation while under oath, will two years
afterward, as citizens not sworn, declare that
the convict of their own verdict ought not to
serve for the penal term which they have al
lotted.
II the Executive himself sometimes feels
half an inclination to grant petition in Or
der to escape further importantly, it will re-
mind him that the most Of the signatures on
many of the applications for pardon are OBJ
lained by persistent and importunate solicita-
lion. They sign not because they believe it
right to pardon, but because they feel it in
convenient to be bored. Even the recommen-
iiation of the attorney who prosecuted, the
Jury who convicted and the judge who pre-
lided and pronounced sentence are to be taken
With some grains of allowance, because made
not only without the sanction of oaths. but |
under the pressure Of very urgent solicita-
ton.
The conduct of the prisoner before commit
ting the crime, the facts relating thereto, and |