The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-12-24
TIE Power to Pardon Contempts of
Court.

The Governor has granted \ pardon To
THOMAS J. WEIGH. one of the supervisors
az Cnoudagn county. who was adiudGed
guilty OF contempt Of court for having
carried certain election returns to Albany
Instead Of giving then. TO the inspectors for
correction. and was sentenced to pay a fine
OF $40 and be imprisoned il the peniten-
.ifry for thirty days.
A question has been raised as to the power
Of the Governor to grant pardon in such
case as this.
The pardonin4 power is conferred upon
him by section 5 Of article 4 Of the State
Constitution in these words:
The Governor shall have the power TO grant re-
prsves mutat,ons and par:ons after conviction.
FOR all odencss except amt oc impeach-
menr upon snch conditions and with such restrictions
and limitations he think proper subject snch
regulations may be provided by law relative to the
manner Of applying for psrious."
Under this provision the power OF the
Governor Of New York is more restricted
than the power OF the President OF the
United States in respect u pardops. The
President may pardon al offender at any
tine after the commission OF the offence.
whether legal proceedings TO punish him
have yet been instituted or not. The Gov
error can PARDON only after a conviction.
The two questions which arise in the
WEIGH case are. first. whether a criminal
contempt of court. prosecuted not BY in
d.-tTent. hut in a sum mary manner in the
"ourt where the contempt was committed.
Is en offence within the meaning OF the
state Constitution: and. secondly. whether
the Adjudication In such a proceeding. that
tie accused person has committed the con-
tanrt- Is 4 con victig1 within the true intent
a,d purport Of the sasne instrument.
We are Inclined to think that both ques-
tnrs must be answered in the affirmative.
As We understand It, the misconduct Of
the OnondaSa supervisor was an act which
II '"fEed as a criminal contempt in section
: Of the Code OF Civil Procedure. Section
n, the same general statute provides that
such coatsmpts may be punished by fine
not exceeding $3.50 or imprisonment not ex-
'aedirS thirty days in the county jail OF the
county where the court is sitting. or by fine
and Imprisonment both: and section IL de-
clares that punishment thus inflicted by the
court :. does not bar an Indictment for the
same offence. but where a person who has
becn so punished Is convicted on such an
Indictment. the court In sentencing him
must take into consideration the previous
Punishment" Here the code itself speaks
Of \ criminal contempt as an offence. and
wa have nc douot that IL would bs CON-
.:,only and correctly spoken OF as such by
lawyers and .ay-uen alike.
AZ 10 whether the decision Of the court
IN tho summary proceeding is convtc-
t,oo. We may quo.e the language Of the
Supreme Court Of the Unite,I Stctes in
Tho EFAESEv case. which was decided In
Isa, and Is reported In the seventh volume
Of 'yHRsrCy's REPORTS. There, Mr.. Justice
SrnE-- deliverinS the opinion of the court,
said: When u court commits party for IL
contempt their adjudication Is L conyic-
tioE."
Although. es we have pointed ont. the
hardening power of tho Governor OF this
State IS not so broad as that Of the Presn
lent. It seems tolernbly clear that IL the
President may pardon a person adjudsed
to have committed a contempt In Federal
court. the Governor may pardon q person
adjudSed to have committed % contempt in
u State tribunal. The view that the Presi-
dent can exercise the perdoning power In
contempt cases Ia sanctioned by the opin-
ions Of three Attornsys-GenerA Of tho
United States: Mr.. GILPIN Of Pennsylva-
MIA. Mr.. CRrrrKNDEH OF Kentucky. and Mr..
Mason OF Virginia, and also by that of
Judge BLxIcrroKD Of the Supreme Court
At Washington.
In at least two State Supreme Courts also.
those of Mississippi and Louisiana. it has
been held that the Governor could pardon q
contempt Of court.