The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1882-10-21
THE pARDONING POWER.

INE IAltDONlNG IONLk.
In recent decision Of the Supreme
Court at Shreveport, when prisoner,
condemned TO be hanged, applied fora
writ Of habeas corpus on the ground
that his application for pardon was
pending before the Board of Parlons,
the Court denied the writ, and in inter-
preting Article &C of the Constitution,
said:
The article does not confer on priso-
ners convicted Of offenses the right of
petitioning for pardon or commuta-
ton, and that right was not required
to be conferred. 1t is an unalienable
right which can neither be taken nor
bartered away. The article recognizes
its existence, but regulates executive
action over it when it is exercised.
The article was not designed to give
to the exercise of that right the effect
of suspcndiug the execution of the sem
tence against the supplicant for mercy.
It was intended as check on the pre-
rogative of the executive to grant par
dOns or combinations. UYereruin sic
27lacebat-a prerogative the abuse of
which had been previously kecnly
felt by the good people of this State.
Where judgments are rendered and
become final, that is sovereign, so that
they cannot be disturbed, the rule is
that they become eXecutory and pro-
duce their effect. The Governors
duty was to cause to be executed the
sentence passed on the petitioner upon
its becoming eXecutory. The word
unmistakable shows that the Cover
nor, in the exercise Of sound discre-
ton, and animated by iaudable mo-
tives of charity, has already granted
the prisoner three reprieves, and that
it is only after waiting nearly year,
and after the application for mercy
had been practically refused that he
determined to issue the death warrant
under which the life of the rclator is
to terminate.
We do not propose to determine
whether there is or is not aLieutenant
Governor of this State. COnceding ar
guendo that there is no such officer in
existence, and that the Attorney Cen
eral and the District Judge have
agreed for mercy, the Governor was
under no legal obligation to grant a
pardon or communication and had legal
authority to issue the death warrant,
which he has. One article of the Con-
stitution is clearly to the effect that
the Governor shall have no power to
pardon or commute unless the board or
a majority of its members shall re-
commend the same. A recommends
ton would not have been binding up
on him. The people, by their Constit-
utiOn, have imposed upon him the
moral obligation and grave RESPONSE
bility of deciding for himself before
Goa and men what the cases are in
which pardons or communications, be-
ing recommended, be should exercise
sovereign clenency. He must be left
untrammeled. The application for
habeas corpus is refused and the priso-
ner Will remain in custody.
Some of our contemporaries seem to
think that this decision is at variance
with the views and acts of Gov. Me-
There has been a claim that the re-
commentator for a pardon was man
datory upon the Governor, but Cover
nor McEnery, if we have understood
his position, has only claimed that the
recommendation OF two of the three Of
ficers, whose immediate province it was
to examine the law and the facts OF the
case, came to him with such force and
authority that it avoided with him tn G
necessity of examining personally all
the facts of the case; and only in extreme
cases brought specially to his notice,
would he reverse the decision of the
Lieut.. Governor and Judge of the Dis
trct Court, or Attorney General. This,
we submit, is not at all at variance
with the Interpretation OF the Constitu-
ton as given above, but is, in fact, in
strict accordance with the decision OF
the Court, and the Governor, we pre-
sumo, will be gratiiicd that the uucS-
ton has been juIicially determined as
it has been.
COL0HED MEN FOR GEN. KING.