Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-11-28
THEY MUST HANG.
Governor Waterman States His Reason
Ior Observation-Disclosures

Governor Waterman States His Reasons
for Non-InterfereDce.
The following letter pointedly states why
Governor Waterman refuses to commute
the sentence of William DrageI and John
Olsen, two of the Lowell murderers, to life
Imprisonment. Their last hope is now
gone, and John Henry Meyer, John Olsen
and William Drager will expiate their
crime on the scaffold at Placerville on Fri
day, November 30th, at P. NJ:
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
SACRAMENTO November 2S, 1855.
To Hon. Marcus p. Belnen District Attorney
II Dorado County, Ifocerriae-DEAR SIR: In ae-
cordance with my telegram to you of the 23d
inst, that would give you my reasons in
writing on this date, why declined to inter
fere in the cases of Meyers. Drager and Olsen,
arrested, indicted, tried, found guilty and SEN
fenced 10 be executed at Placeryllle, in El Do
rado county, on Friday, November 50, 1888, for
the murder of John Lowell, on or about March
a, 1888, now proceed TO do so, and as briefly
as the circumstances and importance of the
subject will admit.
have read over a great deal of the testimony
adduced in the case TO which this bears refer
ence, yonr own views touching the matter and
the petition signed by a number of citizens of
Placeryille and elsewhere in El Dorado county
in favor OF committing the sentence OF Drager
and Olsen from the death penalty to that of i'm
pr1sonment for life. In all that has been pre-
sented TO me- do not see any reason why Exec
utive clemency should be extended. The muir
der of Lowell was an unprovoked and atrocious
crime, brutal in every respect, aud involving in
its commission, aside from ayarice, those most
sacred rights that are expressed in the word
hospitality. There is no doubt the murder was
pren.editated and committed for gain; and was
one in which all the parties implicated partici-
pated, principals or accessories before and
after the fact. Granting for the purpose of
illustration, that Myers. in accordance with his
afterthought affidavit, aods the only one guilty,
ana that he himself did the actual deed OF blood
| consider the other two equally guilty, III the
fact that they knew of the act being committed
carry the torn, bruised and bleeding body
to a place of sepultuIe; assisted TO dig
in the cellar of the victims own house. the
grave in which mis- remains were finally de-
posted by his murderers, and then, as the last
act in the fearful work, they assisted to conceal
the evidence which could point in anyway to the
spot as being the place, underneath whose sur
face the proof Of ghastly horror was hidden.
They also assisted in appropriating the stock
and other property of their victim, and divided
the money realized from its sale. These men,
in whose behalf mercy is asked at my hands
are, to my mind, as bloody-handed as Meyers
and therefore l cannot, with my sense of right
and justice, grant it; and as already indicated
to you, decline to do so. have refused from
the commencement of the efforts that have
been made 10 bshalf of Drager and Olsen, to
accept the affidavit of Meyers, as being in the
| light of new testimony. but being somewhat in
the nature OF tradition, in its excusing and
selfaccusing aspect; and am borne out in the
correctness of my refusal to receive il as new
testimony, in the information that has been i'm
parted me, that Meyers has since reeanted the
affidavit in question. But whether he made or
recanted the affidavit alluded to or not, il does
not enter into the merits of this case at this
| time. / believe them all equally guilty of the
murder OF Lowell. and for the reasons l have
given; and so believing shall not interfere with
the execution of the law, so far as they are all
concerned.
Before concluding this ash to be allowed to
| say a few words in connection with another
| point, which, while it does not pertain to YOUR
| Office, and may not be particularly interesting
| to yourself, comes within the scope of the case
that calls for this, and simply take advantage
| OF the present opportunity to give publicity to
certain views; and therefore l desire to saw
| that do not consider it fair or impartial for
sentencing Judge to intimate even, much less
| announce it as fact from the Bench, that the
| only hope of those sentenced rests thereafter
with the Executive of the State. There are two
propositions to be considered in connection with
such an expression, either the prisoners thus
sentenced are innocent or guilty. If the for
mer, they should have been discharged at once:
or at the conclusioi of the trial, and set free If
| the latter, they should be punished for their
crime, in accordance with the provisions of the
| law made and provided in such cases and the
sentence thus pronounced by the presiding
Judge should be final: unless, indeed such new
and convincing testimony could be produced
and was so produced, as would certify to the
| lack of culpability ON the part of those whose
| life was at stake by the want of such testimony
But what most seriously object to is the effort
made TO substitute the executive branch of the
Government for the judicial particularly, when
| 1t is taken into consideration that it has been
| my especial care, since / have occupied my
| present position, to endeayor in every way to
strengthen and maintain the Courts, and avoid,
| at the sume time, all interference with their
prerogatiye as coordinate branch of the Gov
ernment. have a right to expect the same
courtesy Will be extended me. In thus express
ing these views, | wish my position TO be
well understood They are not so expressed
for the purpose OF avoiding duties which are in
herent In me TO perform. am but a servant of
| the people. The doors of my office are open at
| all times TO the humblest or the highest. Every
man coming under the condemnation of the
law has bounden right to present his griev-
anees Tor adjudication at my hands but insist
there should be no mile posts erected by Judge
to point the way from the bench upon which he
presldes 10 the Executive office. The right of
petition is an inaiienable right it is the COM
mon law of England, as you well know; is the
basis of our systems of laws. 1t was enacted by
| the House of Commons during the reign of Will
IAN and Mary in 1855, in the famous 81 Bill of
| Rights" 1t is incorporated into the Constitu-
| lion of the United States, and the Constitution
| OF this State, and is the unwrtten law of every
| civilized community, that every person. ire
| spective of position, shall not be denied the
| right to petition the redress of grievances.
Blackstone, in his commentary upon the English
| law, says:
| If there should happen any uncommon in.
| jury or Infringement of the rights before men
| toned, which the ordinary course of law is too
defective to reach, there still remains a fourth
| subordinate right, appertsining to every indi-
yldual, namely: the right of petitioning the
King tor the redress OF grievances" Whether
10 monarchial or republican form of govern
| rhent, the right remains unchangei and ire
Yocaole Z. w. WATERMAN, Governor.