The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-09-04
IRELAND I%yTERyiEwED
ILL., Views al Length on the fameh'
Fraseels Ease.
IT NOW COMES ON civil NIGHTS.
ni. Reasons for Granting q rardoa where
bet Asksd-An fnort % ssssh
Campaign Thsnd.T-fswers
Of The Federal Cosr~,

| Francois having been wiuelv anu Vsii-
eddy commented on, Q HERALD repre-
sentative called upon him recently 10
obtain his Own views on the affair. the
Governor had nothing To conceal from
the public concerning h matter, u
readily answered the questions pro-
pounded 10 him. The following Is the
conversation In detall'
Question-Goyernor, among other
Vasons given in your recent proeiama
ton for pardon Of Emile Francois, You
say: "This mans time In nearly out ana
the Federal Judiciary have determined
to release him unlawiully, as l thlhk,
and ~ thore IL no way 10 prevent
would be detrimental To the
public service in Texas, said
convict In so far psrdoned ~ To release
him from imprisonment, but no iur-
Their" In view of this official u~lterance,
aud the anticipated restoration OF FRAN
coils To liberty and citizenship ny the
Federal court, IL does not clearly APP
pear why you specially withheld rom
Francois restoration 10 citikehship' WIN
its many privileges
Governor i%rcland-I have no objection
10 the world knowing every iact ron
nectod with the Francois case, ~ Tar ts
| have n relation To the same. lntil
no sued out the habeas corpus did not
know that such n creature lived. me
Acknowledgement made trip To Gaivcs-
ton Ia attend tho case, in discharge OF
| his official duty. The ease was post.
poned, and on his return lao told me that
| Judge Sabin, the United States District
| Judge who issued Tho writ,
had shown him letter ifoih
| Judge Woods, one Of tho judges OF the
| supreme court of the United states, ana
\ who holds the circuit courts in this cir
| anil xrhnn m uS.npiatA llstlpn oil the
Supreme court presides-eNprossing MS
(Wood's) surprise that Francois was sun
In prison, and saying that he ana Judge
| Bradley, another associate Justice OF the
United States Supreme court, had cofi-
| cluded that the man should DO released:
In this class of cases there IL no appeal
| beyond the circuit courts, hence you viii
| see that the mans release has been de-
termined and a trial would have been a
| judicial farce. The managers of this
| affair doubtless thought that world re-
| sist the mandate of the court and the lte-
publican party thereby given "a tremer-
dous boost for the partisan control OF the
Government. So determined, under nll
| tho circumstances of the case, to end the
farce. There was but one lawful way to
do the thing, and that was tn pardon
the man. Neither Francois nor any II
| for him had ever asked for a pardon; the
whole pardoning power Is in the execu-
tive. The constitution OF this state Tor
bids any n to vote or 10 TESTIFY, VINO
has been convicted of felony. IL Is not
\ nv habit to restore these valuable rights
unless it is requested by the community
from which a party is sentenced to the
~penItentiary. There was no intention,
AS there was no power in me, to deprive
| the Federal court OF its jurisdiction. III
had jurisdiction of the case, and II was
competent for it to go on and give the
applicant all the relief it ever
had authority to grant That the
res u it. was not my fault
nor did it concern me. The law under
which the party had been convicted had
been declared constitutional by. the
court OF last resort in this State. Judge
Duval, of the Federal District bench, at
Austin, had refused to liberate the man,
who had been convicted in the State Dis
trict court before Hon. Il. u. Turner.
then a district judge of the State, now the
Federal District judge of the Western
| District of Texas, and Judge Duval's
successor. Although there was no pen
atty attached to a negro VINO miSnl
marry Il white person, still the marriage
was forbidden and was unlawful. The
law under winch Francois was con-
| yicted, punished the white party only;
then what right was the white person
deprived OF that was left to the ENJOY
ment of the negro? Simply that the
white person so offending could not see
the negro 90 to the penitentiary also?
1t is absurd to say that any n was de-
prived of equal rights by the law. The
humane Southern lawmakers intended
only to punish the more intelligent, at
the same time making the marriage OF
both illegal, but e%xempting the negro
from the penalty fixed for the VIOLATION
of the law. Therefore | said "illegally,"
but the illegality OF the release by the
! courts would have rested on other
grounds still deeper. No lawyer Will
be used as q mode of appeal or writ of
error. If the conviction was really in
| violation of the fourteenth amendment,
which have shown ii was not, still he
could not be legally released in them Nde
sought I'M his case; there would have to
be Legislation by Congress and some
mode Of appeal to the supreme
o n habeas corpus by a Federal
court could not give him a standing, I'M
der the constitution and laws OF the
State of Texas, us a voter or witness
I do not know whether he claims his lib
erty under the pardon or the order OF the
court. When it is made ON
cially to appear to me that
he refuses the pardon | shall ieei ~
NV duty to revoke it, ] do mo- wish to
infrude executive tavors where they are
not wanted. l supposed whe l issued
it that the party would be glad to get II,
and as nc possible harm could come to
the State 0he laws of this State against
m~iscegenation having been so framed
! since his ofiense as to answer any posi-
BILE objection thereto on the part OF the
| Federal judiciary, now Furnishing, as 1t
| does, both parties so Offending), | deter
| mined, at this juncture, to eliminate
from the Republican campaign that,
| which in my Judgment, It was the pur-
pose of it's managers to convert lnto
party thunder rather than to obtain the
release of a mar who was believed to be
| deprived of his liberty illegally.
Questionable United States District
| Court, upon learning of your pardon to
| Francois, dismissed the habeas corpus
| ease by entering an order which reads
as follows, in part: "And it appears
hat the said Emile Francois was en-
larted and restored to liberty and citl-
zenship, it was considered by the court
| that the further consideration OF this
case was unnecessary, and that b said
relator (Francois) remain discharged
and be free from further restraint, etc."
under this entry by the court there
seems to be- some doubt as to whether
Francois is now enjoying immunity
from imprisonment by virtue Of your
proclamation or by virtue OF this federsi
court order? ...
Gov. Ireland-I have answered this
question in my answer to your first. i
am not responsible forthe haste In dis
missing the case. It really appears. how.
ever, that the court considered further OF
the case after the pardon was received;
had nothing to do with sending tele'
Grams. nor did / know that any was be-
ing sent. 49,
observe, embraces the phase, "restoreo