Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-05-28
Interstate Banlshment.

An interesting question in morals, If
not in law, is presented by criminal case
arising i'm South Carolina, which we find
reported in the latest volume, just pub
| lshed, of the excellent series of law
| books known as the American States Re-
ports.
The prisoner had been convicted of the
crime of grand larceny, and sentenced to
Imprisonment at hard labor in the peni-
tentiary for term OF two years. Before
that term expired, the Governor of South
Carolina granted him pardon which was
expressed to be ''upon condition that he
shall leave the State within forty -eight
hours, never to return" On being re-
leased under this conditional pardon the
convict went awav, and remained six
years, after which, however, he was found
again within the State limits, and was
taken into custody and remanded TO
prison to serve out the rest or his original
sentence.
Upon an appeal to the Supreme Court
of the State, the legality of the order
sending the defending back to prison was
assailed on the ground that the condition
in the pardon was illegal and void, al
though the pardon itself was effective and
valid. Under the Constitution of South
Carolina the Governor possesses express
power to grant pardons in such manner,
on such terms, and under such restrict
ions as he shall think proper; so con-
dtiOnal pardon in that State Is clearly
authorized, provided the condition is not
one which is forbidden by law. In this
case, however, 1t was argued that mas
much as there was no such penalty as
Punishment or transportation known to
the laws of South Carolina, the condition
that the pardoned prisoner should leave
the state never to return was unlawful.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina,
however, refused to adopt that view, all
the Judges declaring that they thought it
''quite clear that the condition annexed
to the pardon granted in this case was
neither Illegal. immoral, nor impossible
to be performed.
We do not quarrel with that portion of
the decision which declares the lawful
ness of a pardon conditioned upon the
immediate departure of the convict from
South Carolina. That is question de-
pendent upon the Constitution and the
laws OF the State. But the assertion that
there is nothing Immoral in such a con-
ditioDal pardon we emphaticaily deny.
In our judgment it is great and serious
wrong for one State of the American
Union to Danish its criminals into other
States: and that is virtually the effect of
such pardons as the one under cOnsidera-
ton. 1t is true that in the case of South
Carolina-a State with seaports-the con-
yict might possibly make his way direct
ly to some foreign country; but in most
of our States the only way in which a
prisoner thus pardoned could avail him.
self OF the act of Executive elemency in
his behalf would be to go into some
neghboring State, aid it is plain that If
the practice of granting such pardons
should prevail to any extent, almost cv-
cry State would become the home of a
considerable number of banshed GRIMM
ais.
The people of this country protest with
much reason against the importation of
criminals from foreign lands. 1t seems
to us that just as valid an objection can
be raised by any State to the admission
within its territorial limits of conyicts
who come under a sentence of Danish
ment from some other Stale of the Union.
IN. Y. Sun,