The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-12-30
THE PARDoNlNG POWER.

Nothing should be more clear than the
proposition that reckless or unguarded
exercise of executive clemancy is a great
evil. Persons undergoing punishment by
the solemn sentence of a court, after trial
by due process of law, conducted as trials
now are with every possible safe guard
against injustice to the defendants, are
placed in very strong prosumptive posi-
tions of guilt and properly subjected to
the punishment prescribed by law. The
legislature in its wisdom has laid
down the character and degree
of punishment proper to each offence,
making it discretionary with the courts
in certain specified instances to vary the
degree, within certain specified limits, &C
cording to the MEASURE of aggravation
developed by the facts brought out in the
presence of the court. With all the pre-
cautienary measures taken by our law
making power-the power entrusted by
the people to fix punishment-the charac-
Ter and measure of punishment, for
crime, it scarcely need be asserted that
there can be no proper exercise of execu-
tive clemency, unless some facts, estab-
lished in the most satisfactory manner
and unknown to the judge and the jury
who satup the case of the convict, have
been brought to light subsequent
to the trial; or unless some other circum-
stance entirely unforeseen and not rea-
sonably to be anticipated, has come into
being or into light to convince the execu.
tive mind that, had it been knewn to judge
and jury, either there would have been no
conviction, or else less degree of pun
ishment imposed. In the pointed and
concise language of the law books, the
executive is entrusted with the pardoning
power upon especial confidence that he
will spare those only whose cases, could
they have been foreseen, the law itself
may be presumed willing to have ex-
cepted out of Its general rules, which
the wisdom of man cannot make
so perfect as to suit every
practical case" But for the infrmity
of all human devices there would be no
allowance in our laws for executive Glenn
ency. The legislature, were it possessed
of all wisdom, and the courts of all knowl-
edge and perfect sense of justice, would
impose, as nature does, in all instances,
the measure of punishment exactly COM
mensurate with the degree of offense to
the laws. But man is shortsighted and
weak even at his best and fearing lest the
innocent should suffer unjustly in kind or
degree, the power is given to the ex-
ecutive to relieve from further punishment.
But unless the executive is guided by
some such general rule as we have herein
laid down, it is clear that he usurps the
functions of courts and juries, and sets at
defiance the expressed Will of the people,
who, through their agent, the Legislature,
have said what punishment shall attach to
each offense. 1t is not properly within
executive discretion to alter the punish.
ment one iota, unless there has been some
alteration OF the facts as considered and
passed upon by the courts.
1t appears to The STATESMAN that there
is entirely too much pardoning going on
all over the land, and we propose to
place our condemnation upon it,
without regard to who is guilty
of stretching the executive function in
this matter. We condemned Gov. Lee for
his respite of Cluverius, because we could
see no circumstance of extenuation or fact
brought to light which were unknown to
the court when sentence was passed.
When the legislature, in its wisdom, says,
''hangn for any offence, the punishment
should stand as written. When the same
authority says, confinement in the peni-