Morning journal and courier., 1884-09-11
PRISON AssooIA HON.

W0yland at the Saratoga Convention
 -Dtscusston Upon Same.
 At the Tuesdays session of the National Prison association in Saratoga this week, following the reading of a paper on s'Inter- State Extradition, :" (which was read by MT. Goodwin Brown, of Albany, Grover Cleve- lands pardon clerk) Professor Francis Way land, of the Yale Law school, offered the following preamble and resolution, which were adopted:
 Whereas Owing to the diversity of procedure in the various States territories in the Union in the matter of the etraditon of fugitives from justice as to the eang y o the consto9 and of the United States in relation to the subject
 Whereas, It is desirable that crime should be properly and speedily punished whenever commit
 whereas It is believed that it is entirely feasible to secure by concerted and proper action the adop tion of uniform rules and practice between the States and territories; therefore, be it
 Resolved, That a committee of this association to consist of three persons be appointed by the chair them if necessary or advisable to take such steps as may be necessary to bring about the adoption oi territories of the United States regulating the extra dition of fugitives from justice.
 FAvoRING BOARD OF PARDON.
 The second subject under discussion was ''The Pardoning Power; where shall it be lodged, and how shall it be exercised?" In reading very able and exhaustive paper upon this topic, Professor Francis Wayland, Dean of the Yale Law school and ex-presi- dent of the American Social Science associa- ton, occupied considerable time and was listened to with great attention. He said that pardon in it's broadest sense has been defined correctly enough as Gan act of grace by which the sovereign declares that the guilty shall be declared innocent" Pardon in it's loyal sense, though always nomina1ly and often really an act of grace, simply ab- stains from enforcing the still unsatisied penalty imposed by law after conviction. The definition of Chief Justice Marshall in the U. s. vs. Wilson, Peters. 15O, has been quite generally accepted by text writers as sufficiently accurate. "A pardon is an act of grace which, proceeding from the power entrusted with the executive of the laws, ex- empts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law infiicts for crime which he has committed Even if this is sufficient for general purposes, it ought not to be overlooked in such a>consid-
 
 posed at this time, that the definition is in correct in several essential particulars
 First-The act of grace proceeds from the sovereign or whomsoever the sovereign may designate to exercise the power. In this country the power remains with the sover- ign people, as represented by the legisla- ure, when it has not been delegated to the executive alone, or acting with the advice md consent of a council, or of some or all # the officers of State, or a board specifically elected to perform the duty
 Seeond-Pardons are frequently granted or the sole reason that the petitioner is in- locent of the crime for the alleged commits ion of which he has been suffering the pen. lty; and
 Third-Thers are often incidental penal attached to conviction for crime rom which a pardon does not always ab- olve the individual, such as the forfeiture the elective franchise, incompetency to estify in a court of justice, when the crime harged was perjury, etc. A more correct efinition of pardon, as practically in opera on in this country, would be: "A remission the penalty awarded by a court of jus ce." Let us inquire what provision is lade in the States of our Union for the ex- rcise of this power. In 29 of the States the I power is conferred upon the Gov rnor by constitutional provision In sev- ral States this power is made by the consti- 1tion, subject to such regulations as may y law be provided relative to the manner applying for pardons. In Indiana consti- lt1onaI provision is made by virtue of which l le general assembly may, by law, consti- 1 Lte council to be composed of officers of | ate, without whose advice and consent e Governor shall not have power to grant l trdons in any case, except such as may by W be left to his sole power. Generally it ould seem to have been assumed when not | ecihcally provided for, that where the par ming power is lodged in the hands of the l the legislature may prescribe in nat manner the power may be exercised, as the statute passed in California in 1880, | oviding that pardons shall be granted in l y case where the applicant has been twice nvicted of 8 felony, unless upon written of a maiority of the judges the Supreme court In Iowa, where the institution provides that the pardoning wer of the Governor shall be subject to ch regulations as shall be provided by law, has been enacted that after conviction of 1rder in the first degree, no pardon shall granted by the Governor until he shall ye presented the matter to and obtained , advice of the General Assembly thereon. 1 three of the States the pardoning power edged in the hands of the Governor and l lncil-in Maine 8 council of seven annual elected by the legislature; in Massachu- ts council of eight, annually elected by ]
 people; in New Hampshire a council of z } o1o o&o1h 1o1T-- ] ) States, Rhode Island and Louisiana, the lstitution confers on the Governor the ] yer to pardon by and with the advice and l I sent of the Senate. In the remaining l c tes the following provisions are made for
 exercise of the pardoning power. In rida, by the Governor, justices of the \ 'reme court and the attorney general, or \ Iajor part of them, of whom the Governor e Il be one. In New Jersey by the Cover S , chancellor and six judges of the court of Il 'rs and appeals, or major part of them, I whom the Governor shall be one In s nsylvania by the Governor, on the recom- l h ldation of the Lieutenant Governor, Sec = ry of State, attorney general and secre- IL
 of internal affairs, or any three of them b lone of the foregoing States is unanimous q sent required. In nearly all of them l T. s of impeachment and treason are ex- = ted from the jurisdiction of the pardon power. This enumeration includes all 1 el States but Connecticut. In many of the fo es it is made the duty of the Governor to ,,, rt annually to the legislature, or to file - l the Secretary of State the number of eN Ions granted, with the material facts in m case and the reasons for granting the pt lon. While in the large majority it is itically provided that the pardons may bsolute or conditional, and with such as
 be deemed salutary checks upon crirni- U inclinations, it has been urged with l Si h show of reason that the right to grant t;, lute pardons necessarily includes the 'h' CT to grant pardons with conditions. ainly the power of annexing conditions, ciously and humanely exercised, is of N; great value in the restraint imposed upon an offender and the protection afforded to pc ty. It should seem sufficiently obvious l SD conditions should be reserved for cases fol hich it is conceded or believed that the he toner for pardon was guilty of the crime sol which he has been suffering the penalty. scl an incident which recently occurred in be achusetts would serve to show that so Al principle is sometimes overlooked plt Donahue was sentenced in 1872 in the ize rior court of Suffolk county to 15 years a ate prison for rape. In December 1876 ou le recommendation of the district attor- thu md on the discovery of new evidence fol he had not been guilty of the crime of in
 he was conditionally pardoned, the me ition being that if he were subsequently ho guilty of another crime, he should be inf ,elled to serve out the unexpired term br, 5 original sentence. In 1878 Donahue ho convicted of larceny and sentenced to evt Tears in State prison. Released on the hol ation of this term of imprisonment, he lat e-committed for breach of condition an- rev ko bio 11ar7on ftar ho had suffered Co