The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-04-14


tborlties in that province, and the supreme
court decided he had no such authority. In
discussing the powers of the governor, the
court incidentally remarked, "In criminal
=" jurisprudence, he can pardon, except in
" cases of murder where he eau only re-
"pricvc." This is conceded by every one,
although one of our learned governors
over-ruled the supreme court by pardon
ing a condemned murderer, because ses-
sion Of the legislature had interviewed. The
palpable absurdity of the gubernatorlal
contraction is this Tho governor has no
right to pardon before a meeting of the
general assembly, but that body having
met and refused to interfere with the SEN
tence, the governor can override its decis-
ion and set condemned murderer free.
The same absurdity follows the construc-
ton which would claim for the governor
an unlimited right of reprieve-for he
could keep on reprieviDg forever and set
the courts, the law and the legislature at
defiance. 1t is no answer to say that there
is no danger of this. The question is
whether it is law, and the very absurdity
of the proposition shows that such was not
the intention of the trainers of the consti-
tuition, and that it is not the reasonable or
proper construction of the clause.
Again the Freeman mistakes the nature
of a reprieve, or else Blackstone did, for
Blackstone says "a reprieve (from
reprende, to take back) is the
Withdrawing of sentence for an
interval of time, whereby execu-
ton is suspended. This may be first,
e1 ar5itr1o judiciS, either before or after
judgment" So that, according to Black
stone, taking this case of Phair as an illus
tration, the governor might have granted a
reprieve any time after February, 1875,
and If our constitution limits this power at
all, as we believe it does, he could only
grant 1t to continue to the end of the ses-
sion Of the legislature which met in Octo-
Der last. Upon the other construction, he
can be reprieved until December, 1878,
then again until December, 1880, and so on
indefinitely so long as life shall last, or the
governor shall follow Governor Holbrook's
precedent, override the constitution, set the
Legislature at defiance, disregard the opin-
ion of the supreme court, and grant a full
pardon.
There is another difficulty about re-
preves in this ,tate. Where does the gov
ernor obtain his authority to order an exc
cution? That power, by our constitution
and laws, is vested solely in the courts.
Our courts issue the death warrant, while
in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the gov
ernor not only fixes the day of execution
but issues thelIwarrant. We doubt not
that provisions might have been made for
this in Vermont, but the very fact that it
has not been seems to,show that the law
makers did not intend any Of these temper
airy reprieves, but left it SO that il the
legislature refused to interfere that II
could provide for a new sentence and the
execution of the sentence.
Upon our theory of the case, John p.
Phalr, 'whether.guilty or innocent, is enti-
tied to his discharge-thc court having ex-
hausted its power, and the governor ex-
ceeded his. But we should have no expec-
tation that our present supreme court
would 80 decide, although the court of
1910 discharged Homes, and the courts of
a neighboring state have set free convict
ed murderer on account of tinkering
with the laws defining the different degrees
of murder and prescribing punishment
therefor. Our object in calling attention
to this uncertainty is, the hope that in the
course of century or two the people of
Vermont may awake to the fact that our
constitution and laws need revising and
will take some steps to that end.