The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1886-03-03
REFUSAL TO COMMUTE.
THE BOARD OF PARDONS BY A VOTE OF
TWO TO ONE MAINTAIN THE
DEATH PENALTY.

At 4:10 o'clock p. IN, the doors Of
the Attorney Generals Office were
opened, and Lieut.. Gov. Knohlock
walked off. The reporters entered the
room and one of them asked the Attor-
ney General what the result of the
meeting was.
Attorney General Judge Baker
and myself refused to commute and
Lieut.. Gov. Knoblock favors a COM
mutation. Judge Baker and myself
have drawn up letter to the Cover
nor, embodying our reasons for a refu-
sal, and Lieut.. Gov. Knoblock has
done likewise. The two documents
are as follows:
NEW ORLEANS,
Feb. q, 1886.
Gov. S. D. McEnery:
Dear GovernOr-Wc regret that we are
compelled to notify you that after care
full and full consideration of everything
which has been presented to lis on the
subject we are unable to recommend the
communication of the sentence of Patrick
Fl. Ford and John Murphy, condemned to
death for the murder of Cap. Murphy
We are satisfied beyond all doubt, by ire
fragable evidence that these two men par
ticipated in the killing; that aetuated by
base personal motives they cOnspired with
others and deliberately determined upon
his death that they surrounded and at
tackled him without warning, and relent-
lessly pursued and killed him In a brutal
and c0wardly manner. After patiently
and respectfully listening to every appeal
in their behalf, our opinion remains I'M
changed, and, in entertaining these views
as to the merits of the case, we cannot
advise a relaxation of the
this case we would feel constrained to
take action in every case, thus practically
capital punishment-a power
vested in the Legislature. If holding the
position we do we are unable to perform
our duty without regard to matters which
appeal to our sympathies only, we could
not expect jurors to do their duty under
like circumstances. Without undertake
ing to say what the real healthy public
sentiment of the State is upon this ques
ton; with our knowledge of the facts and
the true merits of the case and our convic-
tons of duty in the premises, we cannot
recommend the communication asked for.
If we were able to divert our minds of
our actual knowledge of the case, OIL if we
any houbt as to the guilt of
the parties, or as to the atrocity of the
crime (Which are not denied by their
friends,) we might give heed to the nu-
merous petitions brought before us, and
join in the recommendations. While our
familiarity with the facts Of the case rem
ders it impossible for lis to make the re-
it would have been great
relief and qualification to us if the friends
of the accased had been able to show some
circumstances which would
have justified us in doing so. We do not
feel that we have any concern with the
alleged inequality of the verdict. Only
the cases of Pat Ford and John Murphy
are before us, and we have but to consider
the facts as applied to them are
such as to demand a relaxation of the law
in their favor. Under this view Of the
case, notwithstanding the jealous efforts
of their friends, and our deep sympathy
with their family, we are restrained by a
painful sense of duty from joining in the
Yours, most respectfully,
NJ. j. CUNNINGHAM,
Attorney General.
JOSHUA G. BAKER,
Judge.