The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-08-08
GOV. PoRrER's ADDRESS.


Assembly, and to-day the camp-meeting proper
will begin, Yesterday was governors day."
and. while the attendance was fair, 1t was not
nearly SO large as it should have been. IL was
expected that Governor Foster, of Ohio, would
be present In the evening, and discuss "The
Practical Treatment of the Temperance Qnes-
tion," but a dispatch was received from him an
nounclng that he could not possibly come, and
therefore it was necessary to supply his place by
a sermon. In the morning, at 10 O'Clock, Hon.
Albert G. Porter, Governor of Indiana, delivered
a very interesting address on "The Pardoning
Power" He said, in substance:
GOVERNOR PoRTER's ADDRESS.
The power to pardon offenders against the
criminal laws of n State, where not expressly
conferred by the constitution or statutes upon
some other authority, resides in the chief execu-
lied States is that the power tc grant pardons
must reside somewhere and the writers who
have most criticized the manner IN when IL mas
too frequently been exercised, admit that the
prerogatve should not he abolished There are
cases in which, after sentence has been given,
the innocence of the accused has been made
plain; and there are instances where, though
the prisoner is not gutless OF the ofense
of which he has been accused, the
gnilt is technical and not at all within the spirit
of the statute, or the magnitude OF the penalty Is
shocktngly out of proportion to the snallness OF
the offense To prevent the law from becoming
in such cases an instrument of injustice instead
OF an instrument to restrain mischief, the par
dOning power should be lnterp0sed.
pardon, where there is prohibition by
constitution or statute, may be allowed before
conviction, or trial. or Indictment, or any official
proceeding whatever. But 1t cannot be granted
before an Offense has been committed merely in
anticipation that it may be committed, or to
give a license to the commission of the ofIense
Where tine power is conferred, in unrestricted
terms, by written constitution, the Legislature
cannot limit the power or prescribe conditions
under which 1t shall be exercised.
pardon may be absolute or it may be con-
ditional If, where it is granted upon eondi-
tion, the condition Is afterward broken, the OF
fender may be again arrested ana compelled to
serve out the remainder Of his sentence. II
pardon has been obtained by fraud practiced
upon the executive, it may be aunuled by the
courts and the offender reminded to prison.
Though the Governors power to grant par
should be appointed, his power TO refuse pardons
cannot be placed under restraint. All the liIni-
tations in the constitution are in restraint
merely of the power TO grant
pardons The power to refuse them
has never been regarded by the trainers of the
constitution as liable to he abused. Indeed,
know of no writer who has ever complained OF
abuses by refusal of an executive to exercise
more literally the power OF pardoning. The
complaints of all writers of reputation who have
made prison discipline study have been that
the power was exercised with too little dlscre-
ton and restraint DIR. Wines, who devoted the
greater part OF "A most useful life TO visiting
prisons, and to the study of preventing crime
aud how to reform criminals, and whose repu.
tati0n writer upon prisons and prison dis
Cipline is not limited to single hemisphere,
says in his great work on the Estate Of Prisons
World" after giving statistics showing the de-
crease of pardons in late years under better
Instructed state of public sentiment: 'Ine de-
crease is mdubtable, and 1t is well that 1t has
taken place; for there can be no doubt that the
desire aud expectation of executive clemency
on the part OF prisoners, absorbing 8s 1t mas
done large share of their thought, anxiety
and effort, has been q serious obstruction TO
their reformation. They are always plan
ming, hoping, working to get ont;
and this makes them uneasy, irritable and indis-
nosed to yield themselves to reformatory infu-
he ri nf -Ya
tive clemency should be retained, but its
exercise should be. if not by law at
not us heretofore and now made the ordinary
resort of criminals whose money social posi-
ton enables them to command the Influence
necessary TO secure their liberation, i'll many
cases. long prior to the time when 1t would be
effscted by the operation of law"
The Governor in this State may not pardon
criminal convicted of treason, but he may sus-
pend the execution of the sentence until the
case shall be reported to the Legislature at its
next meeting, when the Legislature SD all either
grant pardon commute the sentence, or grant
further reprieve.
conviction in all cases except for treason and
cases of impeachment, grant or refuse pardons,
without any other limitation than his own dis
pardon gives the offender "a new capacity,
credit and character" so that though hs may
have been serving sentence for felony.
his crime is deemed so complete
an action for SANDER against whoever may ae-
cuse him OF the crime or which he was CON
victaG.
The question of pardons is the most perplex-
ing one with which Governor has to deal.
He soon finds that no arbitrary rule for deciding
applications be adopted. TO every case
there must be applied cautious and temperate
good sense. Petitions must not be treated as
meaningless, yet they must always be regarded
attorney, Jury and the officers of the county sign
Il petition, a pardon must not be granted merely
on the strength If their names. Great as is the
respect due to such petition, the application
must still be carefully investigated. Cases
not iufrequent where, though all these persons
sign a petition it is evident that pardon should
be denied. The comfort of the prisoner, the
happiness of his family, the hope of his reforma-
ton, may have led them to urge the pardon.
duty of the executive, having regard to the
welfare OF society and the suppression of crime.
to appear memorable. There times
when particular crimes seem epidemic
and the peace OF society requires
that relaxation of punishments inflicted for
them shall be firmly denied. There are crimes
also the commission of which can rarely hap
pen until after there has been long schooling
never be given except with a hesltatng and
suspicious caution, and thorough inquiry into
the prisoners previous life.
The only safe way for the executive, in nearly
all cases, in considering applications for pardons
is to proceed slowly and in most cases to make
confidential inquiries respecting the past char
aoter of the prisoner, the facts alleged in the
application aud the general sense of the pubic
where the crime was committed. And In spite
of all his caution and inquiry, he may sometimes
be led into error. There is danger of error on
either side FOR there are instances, though they
must he allowed to be rare, where facts come to
light, after sentence has been passed, which
make ut perfectly evident that an In
nocent person has been convicted. 10 such
cases the officer clothed with the pardOning
power would be deeply reprehensible who
would allow an innocent man to suffer. There
other cases where judges and juries, carried
away upon current of popular excitement,
become satisfied after sentence has heen pro-
nounced that the severity of the sentence is
altogether
rive should show, in such cases, great Difference
TO their opinion. But he is Obliged to satisfy
himself that this opinion has not been produced
by misleading representations and by uncandid
appeals made after the cause was tried Dis.