The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-09-11
EMILE FRANCOIS.
INTERVIEW BETWEEN GOV. IRE
LAND AND AN ASSOCIATED
PRESS REPRESENTATIVE.
Why Francois was PardOned-
the Political Aspect of
the Case.

questions propounded to him. Tn
following is the conversation in de
tail:
Question-Governor, among othe
reasons given in your recent proclama
ton for pardon of Emile Francois
you say: This mans time is nearl,
out and the federal Judiciary have de
termined to release him unlawfully, al
L think, and as there is no way to pre-
vent it, believing that such decision
would be detrimental to the public
service in Texas, said convict is so fal
pardoned as to release him from i'm
prisonment, but no further" In view
of this official utterance, and the an.
| ticipated restoration of Francois to
liberty and citizenship by the federal
court, it does not clearly appear why
you specially withheld from Francois
restoration to citizenship, with its
many privileges?
Gov. Ireland-1 have no objection to
the world knowing every fact con-
nected with the Francois case, so far
as have any relation to the same.
Until he sued out the habeas corpus
did not know that such a creature
lived. The attorney-general made a
trip to Galveston to attend to the
case, in discharge Of his official duty.
The case was postponed, and on his
return he told me that Judge Sabin,
the United States district Judge who
issued the writ, had shown him let
ter from Judge Woods, one of the
judges of the supreme court of the
United States, and who holds the cir
cult courts in this circuit, when an as
sociate justice OF the supreme court
presideS-eXpressing his (WoodsO
surprise that Francois was still in
prison, and saying that he and Judge
Bradley, another associate justice of
the United States supreme court, had
concluded that the man should be re-
leased. In this class of cases there is
no appeal beyond the circuit courts,
hence you will see that the mans re-
lease had been predetermined and a
trial would have been judicial farce.
The managers of this affair doubtless
thought that would resist the man.
date of the court and the republican
party thereby given tremendous
boost for the partisan control of the
government. So l determined, under
all circumstances of the case, to end
the farce. There was but one lawful
way to do the thing, and that was to
pardon the man. Neither Francois
nor any one for him had ever asked
for pardon; the whole pardoning
power is in the executive. The con-
stitution OF this state forbids any one
to vote or to testify, who has been
convicted of felony. 1t is not my 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. 1t had juris-
diction of the case, and it was compe-
tent for it to go on and give the appli-
cant all the relief it ever had author
ity to grant. That the court dismissed
the case before the pardon was pro-
duced, or reached it, was not my fault
nor did it concern me. The law I'M
der which the party had been con-
victed had been declared constitution
al by the court of last resort in this
state. Judge Duval, of the federal
district bench at Austin, had refused
to liberate this man, who had been
convicted in the state district court,
before Hon. E. B. Turner, then a dis
raj district judge of the western dis
trict of Texas, and Judge Duvals sue
cessor. Although there was no pen
atty attached to a negro who
might marry white person,
and was unlawful. The law I'M
der which Francois was convicted
punished the white party only; then,
what right was the white person de-
prived of that was left to the enjoy
ment of the negro? Simply that the
white person so offending could not
see the negro go to the penitentiary
also? 1t is absurd to say that any
one was deprived of equal rights by
the law. The humane southern law
maker intended only to punish the
more intelligent, at the same time
making the marriage OF both illegal.
but exempting 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
say that the writ of habeas corpus can
be used as mode of appeal or writ
of error. If the conviction was really
in violation of the fourteenth amend
ment-which l have shown it was
not-still, he could not be legally re-
leased in the mode sought in his.case;
there would have to be legislation by
congress, and some mode of appeal to
the supreme court provided for.
His release on habeas corpus by fed
eral court could not give him stand
ing, under the constitution and laws
OF the state of Texas, as voter or
witness. 1 do not know whether he
claims his liberty under the pardon or
the order of court. When it is made
officially to appear to me that he re-
fuses the pardon, 1 shall feel it N.Y.
duty to revoke it. / do not wish to in
trude executive favors where they are
not wanted. | supposed when l lssu-
ed it that the party would be glad to
get it, and as no possible harm could
come to the state (the laws of this
state against miscegenation having
been so framed since his offense as to
answer any possible objection thereto
on the part of the federal judiciary,
now furnishing, as it dos, both parties
so offending), [ determined. at this
iuncture, to eliminate from the repub-
iican campaign that, which in my
Judgment, it was the purpose Of its
managers to convert into party thun-
der rather than to. obtain the release
of man who was believed to be de-
priyed of his liberty illegally.
Question-The United states dis
trict court, upon hearing of your par
don to Francois, dismissed the habeas
corpus case by entering an order
which reads as follows, in part: "And
it appearing that the said Emile Fran
co.'s was enlarged and restored to lib
erty and citizenship, it was considered
by the court that the further consider
alton of this case was unnecessary,
and that the 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 i'm
prisonment by virtue of your Pr oclam-
alton or by virtue of this federal court
order?
Governor Ireland-I have answered
this question in my answer to your
first; am not responsible for the haste
| II, 1icp,iCcirn tho ooco II roo1lu on.