Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-09-02
GOV. IRELAND
"a Concerning the Emile Fran
!. lssir Why the Right Of
citizenship
R.stored 4 The Idea Absurd
!. aay One was Deprived of
Esual Rights BY Law.
H.s no Cause of Action AGAINST
!, sac or the Officials Of
the State,

vi hsen widely ana varieuly com
- n GAZETTE representative
sDon him recently to obtain his
aus on the affair. The governor
ching to conceal from the pub
lining the matter and readily
.,sd the questions propounded to
The following is the converse
( D detail;
aim; Governor, among other
I. gIyen In your recent procla-
~ nardon of Emile Francois,
y. dThis mans time is nearly
y the federal judiciary have de
~ 10 release him unlawfully,
s,rk and as there is no way to
IN believing that such decis-
) .rld be detrimental to the public
I'M Texas, said convict is so far
VA as TO release him from inn
.ment. but no furthern Iu view
oficial utterance, and the an.
"A restoration of Francois TO
and q tiZenship 10y the federal
tdoes not clearly appear why
,~oially withheld from Francois
a,lon to citizenship, with its
privileges
Ireland: ] have no objection to
gofld knowing every fact con-
with the Francois case, so far
Nave any relation TO the same.
n No sued out the habeas corpus |
i Mi know that such creature
Inc Encouragement made a
N Galreston to attend TO the case,
ivStVe Of his official duty. The
y, postponed, aud on his return
Al me that Judge Sab.n, the
M States district judge who is.
lthewrit, had shown him letter
jadEe Woods, one OF the Judges
M supreme court of the United
n and who holds the circuit
M In this circuit when an asso-
Justice of the supreme court
as, expressing his woods J
ne that Francois was
10 prison, and saying that he and
lie Bradley, another associate
cs OF the United States supreme
Il had concluded that the man
10 be released. In this class OF
sthere is no appeal beyond the cir
courts, hence you will see that the
aHs release had been predetermined
8 trial would have been Judicial
h The managers of the affair
sblless thought that l would resist
mandate of the court ana the Re
+ 5ican party would thereby be given
Tremendous boost Cor the partisan
f.lfol of the government. 81 ] de-
|mined, under all the circumstances
the case. 10 end the farce. There
!. but one lawful way to do the
|ing, and that was TO pardon the
l1l. Neither Francois nor any
b for him had ever asked
pardon; the whole pardOning
|Ser Is in the executive. The con
tuition Of this state forbids anyone
vote or to testify who has been con-
{ led OF felony. 1t is not my habit
istore these valuable rights unless
snquested by the community from
seh a party Is sentenced to the PEN
allary. There was no intention. rs
was no power in me, to depri g
sSeral court of its jurisdiction. 1t
y lEisdiction of the case, and IL was
rAent for it to 90 on and give the
iant all the relief 1t ever had au
fiy 10 grant. That the court dis
|sed the case before the
Hdon was produced, OF
ahed it, was not my faul
= did it concern me. The law un
2 which the party had been con
led had been de clared constitutions
the court Of last resort In this state
dge Duval, of the federal distric
lch at Austin, had refused to libeT
the man, who had been convicte,
the state district court before Hon
Ii. Turner, then q district Judge Q
state, now the federal distriC
ige of the western district of Texas
d Judge Duval's successor. AL
1uSh there was no peralty al
he'd to negro who might marry
HE person, still the marriage wa
'bldden and was unlawful. Tn
y under which Francois was con
cied punished the white party only
en- what right was the whit
ison deprived of whicl
1 left to the enjoymento of the negro
IMPLY that the white person so o.
nding could not see the negro 20 I
e penittntiary also? IL is absurd I
Y that any one was deprived c
!aal rights by the law. The human
l4lhefn lawmakers intended onl,
punish the more intelligent, at tn
ne Time making the marriage O
10 Illegal, but eXemptiDg the negr
gun The penalty fixed for the viola
y OF the law. Therefore, ! salt
.egaiiy,p but the illegality ofthe re
q by the courts would have reste'
other grounds still deeper. NJ
Eyer will say that the writ of habea
iPps can be used as "a mode of appea
wit Of error. If the con
euon was really in viola
~ q the fourteenth amendment
lleh ! have shown ii was hot-stil
COULD not be legally released in tn
we sought ia ms case; there wOul'
a,e TO be legislation by congress am
Jug mode Of appeal TO the suprem
.Il provided for. His release on hs
e corpus by federal court could no
\, him a standing, under the constl
'uon and laws OF the state OF Texas
4 voter VI witness. do not knoS
asIaer he claims his liberty unde
Il pardon or the order OF the court
'nsn It Is made officially to appear {.
\ !. mar he refuses the pardon, / shal
Al Al y my duty TO revoke it. | do no
"a TO intTude executive favors wher
ly are not wanted. / suppose
-sh Issued IL that the party woul
glad TO get II, an
~ possible harm could come TO tn
4 the laws Of this state agains
\, genation having been so frames
~ MS oiiense as 10 answer any pos
4 o9leotion thereto on the part {
1 I, 's,qefal judiciary, now Furnishing
y " ooss, both parties so ofiendingl,
y. .sSiilnlned at this juncture TO elm
y, ~ rom the Republican campaig