Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-03-19
KEMBLE'S APPEAL.

KEMBLES APPEAL.
The Board of Pardons Take the First Step.
Since the adjournment of the Board of
Pardons its members have agreed to hold
an extra session on the 9th of March, at
10 O'Clock a. m.-two days before tho time
fixed by Judge Pearson for sentencing the
bribery case prisoners.
At 4.3O o'clock p. m. yesterday applica-
tions for the convicted parties were filed
before the recorder of the board of pardons.
Following is the form of one of the appli-
cations, the other being filled in with diff
ferent names of the parties applying:
What Kemble has to Say.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. VIM
H. Kemble. Dauphin county quarter ses-
sions, March term, 1880. Charge-cor-
rupt solicitation.
The petition of William H. Kemble, tie
above named defendant, respectfully rep
resents: That he requests your honorable
board to recommend that he be pardoned
by His Excellency Governor Hoyt of the
above named Otfense for the following
reasons:
1. The act Of assembly OF 1S41, making
the city of Philadelphia liable for all
damages done by riot. and which was ex-
tended to the county of Allegheny in 1849,
was deemed by many fair minded men as
an unjust discrimination against those
localities. And when the riots of 1877
occurred causing damages to property to
the amount of two or three millions of
dollars, the payment of which was im-
posed by the above act upon Allegheny
county, widespread feeling arose in the
popular mind that equity required thatshe
should be relieved, to some extent at
least, from this heavy burden, and the
people of the whole state be made to
share it. This sentiment grew in strength
as the people became more familiar with
the merits of the question. Acting under
this feeling, and warmly sharing it, a rep
ressntative from Allegheny county intro
duced in the House, bill numbered 1O3,
the object of which was to relieve that
country from the payment of the damages
| caused by the riots. Great excitement
attended its progress through the
House. The feeling of it's advocates and
opponents was bitter and intense. Ar
guments and appeals, and all known
parliamentary strategy were used for and
against it's passage. In the efforts of some
of those who favored the measure and ear
nestly worked for it's success, means OF
doubtful propriety may have been resorted
to to influence the minds of legislators. In
the zeal and earnestness of the petitioner
to accomplish what he believed was a
laudable purpose, he may have gone be.
yond the boundaries of discretion, and, as
he subsequently learned, infringed the
provisions of an act only recently placed
| upon the statute books, and which had
not received judicial Interpretation.
2. Your petitioner had no personal in
terest in the measure, but desired its pas
sage in common with many of the best citi-
zens of the state. The excitement referred
to eliminated in a committee of investiga-
tion, before which he appeared and frank:
| ly stated his participation in tho matter.
On consultation with his counsel he ascer-
tanned for the first time that his statements
and facts, as given in his examination be-
fore the committee, rendered him guilty
Of technical violation of the act OF
1874, and subjected him to the charge
of corrupt solicitation. With no dis
position to withhold the truth, he could
only reafirm his testimony before the
committee, and therefore, he pleaded
guilty to such charge, but protested at the
time of filing said plea, that he had no.
| promised or offered to either or any Of the
| persons named in the bill of Indictment,
any money or thing of value to influence
him in his vote or official action in relation
to said bill, and that said plea should not
be construed as an admission on his part
that he had corruptly offered or promised
any money OF thing of value to said person
or persons mentioned in said indictments.
3. The ends of public justice do not de-
mand the intliction of fine and imprison-
ment in addition to what the defendant
has already endured personally in his
family and business.
4. The object aimed at by all criminal
laws, it is believed, has been attained by
these legal proceedings in establishing the
certainty of conviction for a violation of
the provisions of the act of 1874, and thus
deterring all from practice condemned by
it in terms, while at the same time the
judicial construction put upon the act
must provs warning to others from sub
jecting themselves to its penalties.
(Signed,) w. H. KEMBLE.