Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1875-05-28
Board Of Pardons.

In view Of the frequency with which
criminals are pardoned out Of prison, often
before any considerable portion Of their sem
tence has expired, aud in cases where the
nature Of their crime and the circumstances
surrounding il demand they should receive
the full penalty Of the law, the idea Of the
Penusylvanians, who have established under
their new constitution what they term a
board Of pardons, would seem 10 be one well
worth copying. The evil which this plan
guards against, we are pleased to say, has
for year or two been growing less in mag
mitude in some Of the states, notably in New
York under Dix and Tldeu, and in Massa-
chusetts, while Vermont has never been very
sorely afflicted with it, but the ounce Of pre-
veution is proverbialy valuable, and as such
law manifestly can do no harm except in
holding to their full punishment those who
deserve punishment, and whom the public
good requires shall receive the penalty Of
their cffenses we see no objection to its
adoption by states further north than PENN
sylvania.
This Pennsylvania board Of pardons has
just concluded a session at which sixty APP
plcations for pardons were made and but
tweuty-one were granted. These last now
go to the governor for action, while IN the
case of those rejected by the board he has
no power whatever. All applications for
pardons must now be made to the board, no.
tice of the application having been published
at least twice in the newspapers printed in
the city or county where the conviction was
had. Notice must also be given to the
Judge before whom the case was tried, and
TO the attorney who prosecuted it. Each
application must be made to the full board
through the recorder of the board, being
filed with him at least ten days before the
regular meeting Of the board. No applca.
ton can be heard again after having been
once rejected without the consent of the full
board, nor unless additional proof can be
presented, and no person can address the
board for more than fifteen minutes in favor
of an application.
We notice that one of the first acts Of the
new attorney general is to issue new regu
lation relative to applications for pardons
designating certain questions which must be
answered with each application, and requir
ing that the reasons for granting the pardon
shall be stated in writing over the signature
Of the person who advances them, and tha
the application shall be laid before the judg
who passed the sentence, for his opinion, i
he is disposed to give it.
In country where so much account i
made of popular and representative govern
ment, and where the old theory which ap
piled to kings, that they could do no wrong
is discarded, aud the courts Of justice ar
given authority over the highest official, tn
plan of leaving it in the power Of the execu
tive to undo the every act of those courts 81
far as relates to the furnishing of criminals
looks, to say the least, rather undemocrati
and inconsistent. Surely after witnessiD
the wholesale abuses Of the pardoning powe
practiced by President johnson, by GOV
Moses of South Carolina, and in other les
notable instances 10 all parts of the countr,
the Pennsylvania plan is worthy of consid
eration,-and we believe either that or som
other is worthy of trial.