The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-09-02
IRELAND INTERVIEWED
His Views at Length on Me Famous
Francois Case.
COMES ON CIVIL RIGHTS.
His Reasons for Granting Pardon Whore
Not Asked--An Effort to Check
Campaign Thunder-Pewsrs
OF the Federal Courts.

AUSTIN, Sept. l.-lSpecial.l Governor
lrelend's action in pardoning Emile
Francois having been widely and vari-
edly commented on, HERALD repre-
sentative called upon him recently to
ohtain his own views on the affair. The
Governor had nothing to conceal from
the public concerning the matter, and
readily answered the questions pro-
pounded to him. The following il the
conversation in detail:
Question-Governor, among other
reasons given in your recent proclama-
tion for pardon of Emile Francois, yOu
say: "rhis mans time is nearly out and
the Federal Judiciary have determined
to release him unlawlully, as / think,
and as there Is no way To prevent
1t, believing that such decision
would be detrimental to IN,
public service in Texas, said
convict is so far pardoned Az TO release
him from Imprisonment, but no fur
thor" In view of this official utterance.
and the anticipated restoration OF Fran
cois to liberty and citizenship by the
Federal court, ii does not clearly APP
pear why you specially withheld from
Francois respiration to citizenship, with
its many privileges?
Governor lreland--I have no objection
TO the world knowing every fact CON
nected with the Francois case, 80 far as
! have any relation to the same. Until
he sued out the habeas corpus | did nor
know that such creature lived. The
Attorney-General made u trip 10 Calves
ton To attend the case, iIf discharge OF
his official duty. The case was post
poned, and on his return he told me that
Judge Sabin, the United States District
Judge who issued the writ,
had shown him letter from
Judge Woods, cne of the judges of the
Supreme court of the United States, and
who holds the circuit courts In this cir
cult when an associate justice of the
supreme court presides-expressing his
(Woods) surprise that Francois was still
in prison, and saying that he and Judge
bradley, another associate justice of the
United States Supreme court, had con-
cluded that the man should be released.
In this class of cases there is no appeal
beyond the circuit courts, hence you will
| see that the mans release has been de-
termined and trial would have been n
judicial farce. The managers of this
| affair doubtless thought that would re-
sist the mandate OF the court and the Re
publican party thereby given tremen-
dous boost for the partisan control of the
Government. So determined, under ali
the circumstances of the case, to end III Q
| 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 execu-
| tive. The constitution of this State for
bids any one to vote or 10 testify, who
has been convicted of felony. 1t IL not
my habit to restore these valuable rights
unless it is requested by the community
from which party is sentenced to the
penltentiary. There was no intention
as there was no power in me, to deprive
the Federal court OF its Jurisdiction. II
had jurisdiction OF the case, and it was
competent for II 10 20 ON and give the
applicant all the relief II ever
had authority TO grant. That the
court dismissed tho case before
the pardon was produced, ol
reached IL, 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, ~
Austin, had refused TO liberate the man.
who had been convicted in the State Dis
NilNt NOuib ptlOIt IlNIls IA. N. turner.
then = district Judge OF the State, now the
Federal District judge Of the Western
District of Texas, and Judge Duyal'S
succ ssor. Although there was no pen
atty attached TO negro who might
marry white person, still the marriage
was forb dden and was unlawful. The
law under winch Francois was con
Victed, punished the white party only,
then what right was tho white person
deprived ol that was left to the enloy-
ment of the negro? Simply that the
white person 80 offending could not soc
the negro 20 10 the penitentiury also?
IL is absurd to snv that any one was de
prived of equal rights by the law. The
humane Southern Lawmakers intended
only TO punish the more intelligent, al
the. same time making the marriage OF
both illegal, but exempting the negro
from the penalty fixed iOr the violation
OF the law. Therefore said "illegally,"
but tho illegaiity of the release by Tie
courts would have rested ON other
grounds still deeper. No lawyer will
say that the writ of haleas corpus can
be used as "A mode Of appeal or writ OF
error. II the conviction was really in
violation OF thefourteenth amendment,
which i have shown 1t was not, still he
could not belegully released 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 Federal
court could not give him a standing, un-
der the constitution and laws OF the
state OF Texas, as a voter or witness
do not know whether he claims his lib
erty under the pardon or the order of the
court. When IL Is made Off
cially to appear 70 me that
my duty to revoke it. | do not wish Il
intrude executive favors where they are
not wanted. / supposed when | issued
II that the party would be glad to get It,
and as no possible harm could come Il
tho State (the laws of this State against
miscegenation having been 10 framed
since his oflense rs to answer any posi-.
bic objection thereto ON the prt of thu
| Federal Judiciary, now Furnishing, AZ II
does, both parties 10 otlending), deter
mined, at this iuncture, 10 eliminate
from the Republican campaign that
which in my Judgment, / was the pur
pose OF its managers to convert int
party thunder rather than to obtain the
release of man who was believed to bt
deprived of his liberty Illegally.
Question-Tho United States District
Court, upon learning of your pardon tc
Francois, dismissed tho habeas corpu,
case by entering an order which reads
az follows, In part; "And IL appear,
that the said Emile Francois was en-
larged and restored to liberty and citi
zensldp, ii was considered by the cour
that the further consideration of thii
case was unnecessary, and that tho salt
relator (Francois) remain discharged
and be FREQ from further restraint, etc,
under this entry by the court ther,
seems to be some doubt as to whether
Francois IL now enjoying immunit,
rom Imprisonment by virtue of you
proclamation or by virtue of this fedora
court orderH
Gov. Ireland--I have answered thii
question in my answer to your first;
am not responsible for the haste in dis
missing the case. II really appears, how
ever, that the court consider d further 0
/ A nd l.. "A