, 1888-08-22
WILL NOT INTERFERE.
Governor Moonlight Refuses to Pardon
Milton Maring.

Milton Maring. -
Below is a copy of Governor Moonlight's
letter to Milton Maring's attorney refus-
ing application for a pardon. Maring
was convicted of grand larceny several
months ago.
Aug. 81, 1SSS.-Hon. James j. ROto-
en-, Counsel for Milton Marng.-DEAR
SIR: 1 have duly considered the applica.
ton filed by you for the pardon of Milton
Maring, convicted at the May term, 1888,
within and for the county of Laramie for
the crime of larceny as bailee, and on the
18th day OF June was sentenced to one
year and one month in the penitentiary at
Joliet, Ills, where he now is.
The petition for pardon is signed by the
county and prosecuting attorney, by his
honor the Judge of the court, the clerk
and deputy clerks of the court and a few
Others and bears the date June l6, 1888.
The petition was received at this office
Aug. 7, 1883.
The petition of Milton Maring among
among other things sets forth hat the
act was committed while your petitioner
was under the influence of strong drink.
That while it is true that he used more OF
the money OF another than he had a right
to do, yet he had no intention of stealing
it; but the liquor he drank rendered him
reckless and thoughtless, and the money
was spent before he realized what he was
doing. He fully intended to return the
money to the owner as soon as he could
earn it, and was seeking work for that
purpose when he was arrested"
The gentlemen signing the petition for
pardon say: I'VE the undersigned citi-
zens of the county of Laramie, in the
territory Of Wyoming, respectfully repre-
sent that we believe the matters set forth
in tie foregoing petition are true and
correct, etc., and that it would further
the ends of justice to grant him a par
DON"
A supplemental statement was made
and sworn to by James j. Rowen, attor-
ney for Mr.. Maring, in which he states
that as attorney for the said Maring when
the case came up for trial the county and
prosecuting attorney of Laramie requested
him (Rowen) to have the said Maring
plead guilty as charged; that said Maring
''peremptorily refused to do So" and the
prosecuting attorney was so notified, and
nnounceme made by defendant that
he was ready for trial. The affidavit fur
Their sets forth that the jury was being
called and some of the members had taken
their seats in the jury box when the pros
ecuting attorney again solicited the afiant
to have his CLIENT plead guilty, and AS
sured afiant that he 1.-THE prosecuting at
torneY) and the Judge of the court would
sign IN application for pardon for Maring
if he would so plead. This affiant fully
believing that the governor Of this terri
tory would grant the pardon to said Mar
ing on the solicitation of these officers at
once undertook to persuade said Maring
to plead guilty as requested. Maring on
being informed by this afiant that he
would in all probability be pardoned if he
conformcd to the request of the prosecut-
ing attorney very reluctantly consented to
withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead
guilty, which he accordingly did"
In the written statement made by the
county and prosecuting attorney to the
executive on this case says: 'Maring was
indicted for the crime of larceny as bailee
at the present term of court to which in
dictment he plead guilty"
| can find nothing on which to base ex-
ecutive clemency at present, and an sure
that when the facts detailed in the aft
davit are submitted to his Honor the
Judge of the court, and upon this refusal,
he will so investigate the matter as will
serve the ends of Justice. If Maring was
actually guilty ofthe crime as charged and
to which he plead guilty, there is no room
for executive clemency. If he was not
guilty and plead guilty upon a promise of
executive pardon, surely the matter is for
the court to correct, and not for the ex-
e%cution to interfere. Very Respectfully,
THOMAS MOONLIGHT,
Gouarnor