Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-05-12
HARRIsRuRG Nav 4. 1880.


HARRISBURG, May 4, 1880.
The people of the State of Pennsyl-
vania are led to believe by many of the
newspapers that the prosecution in the
bribery cases assented to the manner
in which Kemble and his fellow unfor-
tunates were pardoned, as evidenced
by the fact that the Commonwealth
was not even represented before the
board at the hearing. This might be
a proper conclusion to draw but for
the fact that the Board of Pardons vi
olated at least two of their rules, and
thereby prevented the Commonwealth
from being heard or from even know
ing what was to be heard Rule third
is as follows:
Notice of the application for pardon) mrst
be given to the Judge who tried the case and
10 the District Attorney or attorney who pros
ecuted, stating when the application will be
made, and the grounds reasons upon which
the application is based and no other grounds
than those contained in such notice will be en-
tertained by the board.
No portion of this rule was observed
except that the District Attorney was
notified, on the afternoon of the 29th
of April, to appear before the board on
the following day at 10, a. m; this
when be was engaged in the Quarter
Sessions trying cases The grounds
upon which the application was made
were not disclosed. Rule 6 concludes
as follows:
And no application will be heard or consid-
cred unless the same and papers upon which it
is based have been filed at least ten days before
said session, and in no instance will this rule
be relaxed.
This rule was relaxed.
After so much relaxation we might
conclude that the honorable Board of
Pardons meant to treat the proceeding
as a rehearing but for the following,
rule, the seventh:
No application that has been refused by the
board will be reheard or reconsidered unless
acknowledgements for reopening the case are
| formally presented to and approved by the
board; and when submitted again the publica-
| ton and notices required by rule second two
! weeks notice in newspaper) and third (notice
| to district attorney, with grounds) must be
made anew, and proof thereof, together with
additional reasons filed, according to provisions
| of rule sixth.
The Attorney General, from whom
the board would naturally get the law
of the case, was not even present to
hear what the Commonwealth coun-
sci might have to say. Indeed, the
recommendations for pardon must
have been signed by him before, in vi
olation of rule IL, which says:
No application will be considered if present
ed TO any Individual member of the board.
This wholesale disregard of the
rights of the Commonwealth enabled
the petitioners, upon false suggestion,
to have recited that the sentence of
the Court of Quarter Sessions of Dau-
phin county was illegal. inasmuch as
it condemned the petitioners to impris-
onment at the penitentiary at hard Ia
Dor, when in fact they were sentenced
to separate confinement at labor, as d..
rected and declared in regard to all
crimes punishable by Imprisonment in
the penitentiary. There are very few
crimes now mentioned in our statute
books for which person can be SEN
fenced to hard labor. But it is said
| that these men could not be sentenced
to the penitentiary at all, as the law
does not so provide-it does provide
for not exceeding two years imprison-
ment, and does not say where, leaving
that to the discretion of the Court. On
looking over the penal code of 1850 we
observe there ninety-three distinct Of
fences, for which persons are daily SEN
fenced in some of the courts of the
Commonwealth to Imprisonment in the
pententiary said code does not make
mention of that prison, this including
perjury, falsifying deeds, sending chal-
lenges, sodomy, bigamy, incest, bribe-
ry, including members of the Legisla-
ture, for FIVE years; bribery of voters,
two years, lottery, common gamblers,
gambling with public money, five
years; embezzlement, five years; im-
porting convicts, murder in second de-
gree, manslaughter, mayhem, five
years; rape, attempting to commit;
robbery, larceny, horse stealing, false
pretense, three years; conspiracy
fraudulent insolvency, burglary, arson,
forgery and many others might be cit
ed. In very many of these offences
there is no mention of separate con-
fnement at labor, yet no Court ever
hesitated to impose that sentence, for
such is declared to be the penitentiary
discipline in the statutes regulating
that prison 1t is said that this is i'm
posing an infamous punishment; such
it is; but the crime is infamous, so
| treated of in the Constitution of 1874.
Let US now suppose that the Court
was IL error in sentencing to the pen
itentiary, wnas was the legal remedy
At any time during the term the SEN
tence could have been amended Ey
Judges Pearson and Henderson, and
surely would have been 80 done if the
defendants could have satisfied the