Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-11
THE PARDoNING POWER.

The Governor has just pardoned three
men out of the Penitentiary, and this
raises the question as to the policy OF
giving the pardoning power to Gov
ernor. The question of the granting to or
the withholding the pardoning power
from the Governor is not within the
province of the Legislatures authority, it
having been conferred by Section 2, Of
the Organic Act. Let us look at the
grounds upon which Governor Murray
pardoned Price, Noyes and Valen-
tine. 1t is said that the first
two were pardoned because the Governor
was advised of facts which went to
establish the disreputable character of
the witnesses upon whose testimony Price
and Noyes were convicted. If such is
the case, why was not the disreputable
character of the witnesses for the prose-
cution made known at the time Of the
trial? But supposing the witnesses for
the prosecution were OF disreputable
character, the question still remains, was
the evidence which they gave true and
such as to justify the verdict of the jury?
Take the cases where men turn States
evidence. No one ever heard of a man s
turning States evidance who was not dis
reputable, as he would have no connec-
ton with the men who are convicted by
his evidence if he were reputable.
Another objection to the granting
of pardons is the fact that they are
always granted upon &c parte evidence,
and the evidence is presented in the most
favorable and plausible light, and those
who give it are exempted from the test OF
a searching cross-examination. When
only one side of any case or question is
presented, it is certain that only the best
side is presented, that is, the side which
is best calculated to further the object of
those who present it. From the earliest
times, in Anglo-Saxon countries, the jury
has been thought and has proven to be
the best means of ascertaining the actual
facts in any controversy between parties,
and it has been looked upon as being
peculiarly the safeguard of the accused
citizen. And why has this been the case :?
Because no man is fit to be a Judge in his
own case, while twelve honest and intelli-
gent men will usually thoroughly
and fully discuss and weigh all the evil
dence presented, both pro and con, and
will arrive as near to the truth in the case
as can be had. In the case they have no
interest but to discover the truth and use
all endeavors to find it out. That iuries
are liable to err is true, but twelve men
are less liable to err in a case, as a rule,
than one man, and It is for this reason
that Governor should respect the deci-
sion of the court and jury in case, un-
less every doubt as to the innocence OF a
convicted and sentenced man is removed.
There may be wisdom in giving a Gov
ernor the power to pardon, especially
where it may happen that really inno-
cent man is incarcerated, and it turns out
has happened where men have been
found guilty of murder and the supposed
victim not only is alive but comes and
asserts his identity and proves it. There
have been such cases, and in them it
would be the extreme of cruelty not to
have power somewhere to give such
prisoner freedom.
Take the other case in which Governor
Murray granted pardon on Wednesday,
that of Valentine. On the 26th of May,
1894, he was convicted of the crime of
burglary, and was sentenced to four years
imprisonment in the Penitentiary. The
ground on which he was pardoned was
that he had performed efficient service in
the conduct of the prison; very good
grounds of applying the Copper Act but
not for pardoning. In the case of valen-
tine there was also petition numerously
signed by the citizens of Ogden,
also an earnest recommendation from
ex-Judge Emerson, who tried the case,
lOt . lllc
tion stating that Judge Emerson believed
that the ends of justice had been met in
this case. If. the ends of Justice have
been met, then an injustice was done
Valentine when he was convicted and
sentenced to four years Imprisonment in
the Penitentiary. In view of these three
cases, certain it is that something is
either wrong with the jury system and
the law, or else there is something wrong
with the pardoning power; we are in
clined to think the latter. The tendency
in the use of the pardoning power is to-
wards too great leniency in the case of
criminals who have been fairly tried and
convicted, and as rule pardons are
granted on the very evidence upon which
the jury refused to acquit In these three
cases, and impartially weighing all the
facts, it is impossible to come to anv
other conclusion than that the desire to
be lenient has outweighed the desire to
be just on the part of Governor Murray.
Kind heartedness is always commend
able, but it is not always the best guide.
-----@s-
~ BUNCOMBE.