Morning journal and courier., 1880-05-03
Monday norning, May 3, 1880.
- - THE RELEASE OF THE RRIBERs

l THE RELEASE OF THE RRHBERS,
 When it became evident that five of those | whs had bribed members of the Pennsylvania Legislature were to be tried, some, acquainted | with the state of affairs in Pennsylvania, did not hesitate to declare that nothing would
 come of the trial but demonstration of the
 ability of the law breakers and their friends to defeat the law. Those who held this opinion
 may have been little staggered whom the
 bribsrs went to prison under their heavy ssn-
 tencss, but the result has shown the correct
 ness of khsir judgment.
 | Four days after the five were sentenced to one | years confinement in the penitentiary, to paya
 fine of $1,0OO each and the costs of prosscu- l tien, and to be forever disqualified from hold l ing any office of profit or trust under State | law, they walked out of prison free men, with I their fines and costs to pay and their disquali- fcation for office unremoved. Their fines may be paid and they may not. They can
 probably get their disqualification for office removed in the course of year or two, and
 then all that will remain to trouble them from
 outside will be ths reputation of having bsen
 in prison for bribery, which reputation, judg.
 ing from what has already happened, will not
 be serious injury to them in Pennsylvania.
 Some of the proceedings which imm sdiately
 preceded the issuing of the pardens are inter
 esting. The Board of Pardons met in special session. There was no counsel present to represent the Commonwealth. The Board having ascertained that the Commonwealth had nothing to present in the matter went into executive session, and were closeted for about fifty minutes, though it is probable that the discussion of the subject did not occupy fifty seconds. It was understood that Attor- ney General Palmer, absent on account of sickness, was not only in accord with the action Of the Board, but had directed that his name should be appended to the recommen- dation for pardon before 1t was forwarded to the Governor. If anybody had any objection there is no record of it's having been stated. All was as harmonious S if those engaged in the affair were preparing testimonial of es- teem for public benefactors, instead of par dons for convicted malefac.ors wko had hard ly been long enough in jail to learn the lock step.
 The reasons given by the Board of Pardons why the Governor should exercise the pardon ing power are also worth looking at. The guilt of the prisoners is not denied, and no attempt is made to show that they are less guilty than they are generally supposed to be. l It is stated that the act of 1874, under which | the bribeIs were convicted, provides for sim | pie imprisonment. No power is lodged in the | Courts by the Constitution or laws l to add to or impose conditions not | contained in the statute. By ths common | law, the Board says, imprisonment in the | penitentiary has always bssn regarded in- | famous. Nothing is said concerning the | infamy of bribery. In view of these facts | and of the severity of the punishmsnt re- maining to be executed for aa ofense recently | made punishable, and for which thsss are the | first convictions, the Board recommend the | release of the prisoners. One would think | that six years was long enough for an offence | frequently committed to be punishable with out anybody being punished, and that those | first convicted of 1t did not deserve much because they were tho first to feel the power of law which had been long and knowingly trampled upon. But the Board of Pardons and the Governor of Pennsylvania have no such idea, or If they have thsy do not mention t.
 The main reason for this defiance of pub lie opinion, this outrage upon justice and upon seems to be that the convicts had threatened to ''make clean breast of 1t" if thsy were not set free. It needs nothing more to show the intensely disgraesful nature of the affair.