The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-05-22
nrprp1IoAN 1fns porrLEp.

[The Cleveland Leader,l

The PardOning Power NOT ABUSED Dy uV'' Dis"
Cd, But Used More SpAringly Than by Either
Hayes or Young.
[The Cleveland Leader,l
10 The Editor of The Leader!
In several recent editions Of your pa
per | noticed number of illusions to
the improper use of the pardoning power
by Governor Bishop. These were in
part editorial, and the rest from your
correspondence here. The impression
obviously conveyed by these articles
we're that the Governor was exercising
this power improperly, excessively and
secretively.
A few words in relation to this i'm
piled abuse of the pardoning power may
serve to correct erroneous views on this
subject. As to pardoning improperly or
undeservedly, that is question ABOUT
which the judgment of men differ wide
ly, even when all the facts in any given
case are " ell known tJ them. submit,
therefore, how modestly one who knows
nothing, or at least very little Of the
facts in a case, should undertake to crit
icise and arraign the wisdom and justice
of conclusions reached by another who
has carefully examined and considered
all the facts and circumstances of the
case, aud who, in the judgment of the
people, under the Constitution, has been
selected for and charged with this duty.
Before it can be said that the pardon
ing power is being used excessively, in
an absolute numerical sense, the case OF
every convict must be examined to learn
only how many of the whole number are
deserving of this ClemenCy. For until
all 30 deserving are released and others
pardoned, ii cannot be affirmed, in this
sense, that it is excessive.
Perhaps, however, it is meant that
Gov. Bishop has used this power exces.
sively in a relative sense, If 80 let us
see how his acts compare with those of
his immediate predecessors. From the
Executive documents 1t appears that
from Jan. 9, 1877 to to Jan. IA, 1878, Gov.
ernors Hayes and Young pardoned 1872
convicts, while from Jan. IA 1878 to Jan.
IA, 1879, Gov. Bishop pardoned 106, or
26 less. During the year Cows. Hayes
and Young were in Office there were
1893 convcts in the prison. During
Gov Bishops year in Office, 1888; from
which it will be seen Cows. Hayes and
Young pardoned about one one in every
twelve prisoners, while Gov. Bishop par
doned one in every fifteen. During the
last three months of Gov. Young's term
he pardoned A. During the next ten
months of Gov. Bishops term he par.
doned SO. Had Gov. Bishop pardoned
in the same ratio as Governor Young he
would have 146 instead of 96 So much
for the charge of pardoning, either abso-
lutely or relatively.
Now, as for Governor Bishop desiring
secrecy about his actions in this matter,
l wish to say that every year the Cover.
nor is required to send to the General
Assembly the name of every convict
pardoned, where and when convicted,
for what crime, the length of his sen.
tence, and his reasons for pardoning. If
he desired secrecy, the law interposes
and makes it "tale that is told" Sew.
eral objections surely interposed to max
ing these pardons public through the
daily papers. Without celebrating these
are sufficiently obvious. The publicity
thus given prevents in many cases the
released convict from getting employ.
ment; induces the great number of ap.
plications for pardon, and through par
tial or garbled statements Of facts in ca
ses acted upon, does great injustice to
the public service.
Very truly yours,
ALBERT ALLEN, Ex. Sec'y.
Columbus, O., May 5, '79.