The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1882-08-05
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.

case OF J. =. Powers, We give In Tull
the decision Of Gov. Thayer regarding
the application for clemency:
STATE OF OREGON, EXECUTIVE OFFICE.
Salem, July 2Slh, 1882.
In the matter of the application for
executive clenlelcy in favor Of ]. G.
Powers.
At the October term, 1881, of the
circuit court for The county of Multi
nomah. Powers was tried and con-
victed of murder in the first degree for
the murder of Bemam in Cornelius,
and sentenced to be hung Numerous
petitions have been duly presented to
me In his behalf, containing, In the
aggregate, the names of ten thousand
petitioners, representing the counties
of Multpomah, Washington, Clatsop,
Columbia, YamhiIl, Polk, Linn, Una
tilla, and portions of Washington Ter
ritory. They contain the names of the
leading citizens and representative
men of the various localities from
which they were forwarded. In many
of them the occupation OF each of the
signers is set out In some of them u
full pardon is urged, nut generally a
communication of the sentence to i'm
prisonment for life is all that is asked.
[ have also received several letters
from prominent citizens residing in
different parts of the State soliciting Il
change of the sentence, and have been
advised by many others with whom /
have consulted that it was proper
case for executive interference. One
of the petitions received was signed by
nearly all the members OF the bar of
the fourth judicial district. / have
met few parties who were opposed
to any pardon or commutation of the
sentence, but I am fully satisfied that
the sentiment of great majority of
the people of the Statev is against the
execution of Powers, and that the pc
titions and letters referred to as ii gen
eral thing, express the honest convic-
tions of the signers. These various
petitions are more important from the
fact that the circumstances of the he.
micide were widely known. The affair
occurred at cele bration of the Fourth
of July in Portland, when a large
number Of persons were present, end
was extensively published throughout
the country. Consequently the peo-
pie had a better knowledge of it than
they generally do of such occurrences,
and are able to petition more intelli
gently.s Though | attach Importance
to petitions i'll all proper cases, the
right of petition is secured to the peo-
pie by the ighest authority known to
the government. 1t may be and prob
ably is often abused. but it. does not
follow that petitions are to he ignored.
for that would bo destructive of the
immunity itself; yet there should
always be reasonable grounds upon
which to found petition. A govern
or, for instance, world not be justified
IN changing the sentence of TIE law
pronounced by the court simply be-
cause the people requested it. A
valid reason should be shown for 81
important an act, else it should be
refused. In considering the subject oi
a pardon, the executive has no right
in my juagmen, to review the law o,
evidence i'll the case for the purpose OF
ascertaining whether or not error has
been committed in the conviction OF
the party. The court aud Jury cor
stltute the tribunal to settle question
of that character, and their action in
that matter is a finality, and is unim
peachable in this proceeding The court
and jury determine the law and the
facts, and l must assume that theil
determination in this case has been
correct, and that Powers was in accor.
dance with the law and evidence
rightfully and properly convicted oi
murder in the first degree, and that,
by the laws of this State he has forfeit.
ed his life. Still think that the gen
eral circumstances which have occa
stoned the killing may be taken in
consideration Ill an application fo,
clemency, though concede that an at
tempt t. draw distinction between
cases IN which parties have Purpose
ly, and of deliberate and premeditated
malace," killed people, appears like
subtiety, refinement that possibly
should never be admitted where hui
man life under such circumstances has
been sacrificed. But as a matter Of
fact, there may be wide difference in
cases, both In the manner of killing
and the circumstances and motives &C.
casioning it. The assassin who lays in
wait for his victim and stealthily mur.
ders him for hls money, is a greater
culprit, morally, than be, who, smart
ing under the sense of injury to him
s,lf or family, comforts the offender
and slays him; yet the law might
adjudge both acts ofensives OF thesame
grade. It is claimed in this case. in
the petitions and letters before men
toned, that a family difficulty has
arisen between the deceased and Pow
ers; that Powers had married his
daughter; that they had children; thai
there had been separation, and thai
Powers had become annoyed and ex
asperated on account of it; that the
deceased was powerful man physical
ly; that on the day OF the murder h,
had armed himself in expectation of /
difficulty; that the two parties met IN
street in the city of Portland; that |
desperate encouater ensued in whicl