Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1876-05-04
rand larceny, in order to make available his

grand larceny, in order to make available his
testimony in the case of the State Us. B. G..
Yocom, which you are about to proceed to
Chester to try, upon the order Of the chief JUS
tice. This application is also made by G. S.
Brice, Esq, who is associated with the solicit
or in the prosecution Of said case.
The question thus presented to me has oc.
casioned me much embarrassment The par
ties to the controversy, out of which the pres
ent case has grown, are liable to bias and pre-
judice. And am above all things anxious
to do everything for JUSTICE nothing for re-
venge. IF Lilley's testimony is essential for
the ends of justice in case of great public
Importance, I must not prevent it from COM
inS forth. On the other hand, mast not aid
in my effect to purchase or manufacture evi-
dence against any one. -.
The official statement made to me by the
solicitor and Mr.. Brice is entitled to great
weight, and after mature consideration and
consultation, conclude that it is my duty to
grant the pardon on certain conditions, name
1y: First. I shall insert in the pardon the
condition that Lilley shall submit himself to
full examination before the court on the trial,
and that the pardon shall take effect only on
your certificate that he has given evidence, in
your Judgment. fully and in good faith. Sec
ond. I shall place the pardon in your hands,
to be offered or not to Lilley, as you in your
Judgment shall deem most conducive to the
ends of justice.
know that you will appreciate this res.
possibility and will act discreetly. You have
power to use or withhold the pardon as your
judgment and official duty shall dictate.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
D. III. CHAMBERLAIN,
Governor of South Carolina.
SOME FURTHER PARTICULARS.
The Governor called the attention of your
correspondent to the fact that the constitution
gives the Executive the power to grant par.
dons after conviction, on such terms and un-
der such restrictions as he shall think proper.
The request for the pardon of Lilley was not
based at all on the ground of his incompeten-
cy, and that question was not considered.
The ground was that Lilley refused to give
the testimony set forth in the application of
Messrs. Mackey and Brice unless he ,oas par
doned. The question of his competency with
out pardon was question solely tor the
court. The Governor was not willing to grant
q pardon unless he was convinced Of Llley's
good faith in his offer to give testimony. The
only way to guard against deception on this
point was to grant pardon on condition that
he gave testimony in good faith. 1t was ne
cessary also to guard any inducement to Lii
ley to give any particular testimony for or
against the observation-disclosures the special form
Of the condition inserted in the pardon.
Hence, also, the pardon was entrusted to the
presiding judge who could not be imagined to
have any bias or motive except public justice.
1t may be added that Judge Northrop informs
the Governor that he regards his action as
characterized by great prudence and wisdom,
and especially as vindicated by Lilleys final
declaration in open court that, if pardoned,
he would not testify, thus showing that his
real motive in treating with the solicitor and
counsel for the State had been to secure his
pardon and then to refuse to testify. Lilley
was taken to Chester on habeas corpus ad
testifcandum issued by the court at Chester, a
matter of which the Governor had no knowl-
edge and over which he had no control
Judge Northrop's decision had the practi-
cal effect of rendering the pardon of no force,
and Lilley's status remains unchanged.