The silver state. [volume] (Unionville, Nev.) 1870-1903, 1877-08-28

" oS Sh"S tuO NOAotituttO0 uO6S
not, In terms, use the words Board of
Pardons." But he is wrong wlssn he
says that such Board is not recognized
by law. The Constitution gives au.
thority to the Governor aud other off
GERS named TO grant pardons, etc.,
subject to such regulations as may be
provided by law" etc.
Section l of the Act approved Feb
rnary 20, 1875" (stat. 1875. page 79)
likes the time tor giving notice, unless
u member of the Board OF Pardons, for
good cause, preseribes shorter time"
Section 2 makes its the duty Of the of
hcers receiving the notice Ito transmit
forthwith to the Board of Pardons u
statement In writing Of all the matters
within their knowledge affecting the
merits OF such application"
Section 3 declares that ANY member
OF the Board of Pardons shall have au-
thority to-administer an OATH"
Section 4 provides for the punish
ment Of every person who takes false
oatn in an application to the Board of
Pardons."
Will it be contended that under these
provisions the Board of Pardons' is
not recognized by law2 Again the
members constituting the pardoning
power, under the Constitution, have
following out their Interpretation of the
law-adopted rules of the board of
Pardons" (Which will be found in ii
New. Rep, page 81 regulating the time
when the regular meetings of the
Board should he held and when special
meetings might be called, and, among
other things, providing that no applica-
ton for pardon, etc, shall be- con-
sldered by the Board unless liz the
form and manner required by the law
of the State
Ii LEX" would carefully read the
law and the rules of the Board he
would perhaps find that the right of the
members to act individually is not as
clear as his communication attempted.
to make 1t. Ii not SO satisfied let him
read the decision of the Supreme Court
of this State in ''Exparte James, lst
Nevada. 3l9. where the Court express
ly decided that under the Constitution,
the pardoning power is vested in
board Of five persons. 1t requires the
Governor aud at least two other
members of the Board to concur in
granting a pardon.
Bot admitting that the Constitution
and the law authorizes the action as
taken in Huff's case. Is that the usual
or regular coarse to pursue2 Has il
ever been done before? Why is it that
the Governor did not call special
meeting or ssleast notify all the mem
bers that he had signed commuta-
ton? What evidence, if any, was pre-
scented to the member "who changed,
his vote" in addition to the evidence
regularly presented before the Board?
Was it statement from the District
Judge or District Attorney? If SO the
law provides that such statement must
be transmitted, not to the Governor. or
Attorney General, or any other individ-
ual member, but to the Board Of Par
dons."
Surely tbs law contenlplates that the
State. as we'll as the applicant, has the
right to be heard before the Board at a
regular or special meeting. and to have
the advice. opinion and Judgment of all
the members OF the Board. This is the
opinion of many good citizens with
whom / have conversed, who all de-
clare that it is, or ought to be, the I'M
biased opinion of every taxpayer in the
State that is interested. in upholding
preserving and properly enforcing the
laws of the State. VEsITAs.
Carson. Aug 25, 1877.